Why is moral relativism false? What are your arguments against it?

Why is moral relativism false? What are your arguments against it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
twitter.com/AnonBabble

She's wearing so much makeup, I bet she's hideous without it

>go to youtube
>search for "Arguments against moral relativism"
>?
>profit

Newfags, learn board culture and reject one-posts.

there's no logical argument against it, without invoking something supernatural. there is the pragmatic one though. It is obvious that some moral systems are better than others once you agree on values.

If you really need this explained to you like you're 5 years old, you wouldn't understand it. Eventhough it's common sense to everyone with atleast half a brain.

It is a ridiculous concept, because it implies that all cultures and value and ethical systems are equivalent. Until, of course, you bring up the fact that if whites do not think it is wrong to exterminate the niggers, it is not wrong to exterminate the niggers. This kills the retarded leftist.

It is false but the trick is to pretend like it isn't. "Morality doesn't exist, therefore we should live like degenerates and let society and culture collapse" is stupid reasoning.

Ah shit other way around, sorry. "It isn't false but the trick is to pretend like it is."

no bully pls

If morality isn't absolute, then how do you know that anything is morally good?

This.

Do you have to "agree on" values? Why can't values be universal?

I agree except that even invoking the supernatural doesn't help

Because that's incoherent, a value is always a value to somebody, for some purpose, hence values are always subjective, in that they consist of personal beliefs and opinions and there is no objective arbitration possible, and relative in that values can only be relative to some purpose, i.e. Happiness, utilitarian welfare, peace, order, etc

What makes morality good? Isn't it a way to guide people to lead better lives? That sounds measurable to me.

It's a given since she's Asian

You don't know

you just think about it, search your feelings, and your conscience guides your actions

When somebody is doing something that conflicts with your subjective morals, and they won't agree that what they're doing is wrong, you have no logical recourse, your only option is to attempt to force them to do what you think is right, either physically or relying upon society

average whites

average asians

Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak,s. 19, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

This started the XXth century.

Let me put it this way: If one person does some actions that get him physically injured in his interactions from other people, purely as a result of his interactions with them, then is it more likely or less likely that he is a very moral person?

>guide people to lead better lives
Better in what way? Happier lives? People are going to disagree on what is he best way to achieve happiness. More productive lives? you can think that but there's no logical justification why being as productive as possible is the best way to live.

Your instincts might be onto something though. Given that most people can agree on some values: nonviolence, honesty, a balance of altruism and taking care of one's self, we can then use objective measures to try and figure out what behaviors achieve these values best.

Claiming that morality is subjective does not commit one to the problematic notion that there is no possibility of logical ethical discussion

I will kill moral relativist. That is my argument.

why do people feel like moral relativism is so convincing?
even in this thread, look at non-philosophers are sure it's basically inescapable

where are all these ultra persuasive arguments FOR moral relativism?
relativists always just assume the case for relativism is made if nobody can convince them of non-relativism
but unless you can argue convincingly for relativism, obviously the reasonable position is just being undecided

so define your relativism: exactly what is it that's relative to what, and what does "relative" mean?
then prove that it's true

Probably less likely that they are moral.

But that's just a probability thing, not really a principle. There is justified violence. Maybe this person is a fighter for justice under an immoral regime.

laws of physics

We are all the same biological animal with almost the same requirements. We all need food, water and shelter; we all want to find a mate and have children; we all want to live without hardship; we all want to get along with our neighbors. These are universals, no matter where you live.

Because a good life for one faggot is having a 10yo wife

A good life for someone else is being filled with heroin for the rest of their life

Another is having children and raising them to not be faggots

Is there any question in your mind that murder or stealing are immoral?

Hume's argument that "ought" statements can't be derived from "is" statements seems very reasonable to me.

Just take any example of a moral statement you believe. Then ask yourself why. Chances are you will appeal to some desirable thing. Then you can ask why that thing is morally desirable. Chances are you will appeal to another thing. And so on.

There is no way to definitively justify why something is morally preferable, in the end you are forced to put your foot down and say "I simply prefer this". And that's what makes it subjective.

It doesn't mean there's no possibility of intelligent people finding common ground. Quite the opposite, people will often find many who agree with them on where to "put their foot down".

because morality has a purpose, and it deals with human nature.

the purpose is what it is and not something else.

the nature of man is what it is and not something else.

thus, morality is objective, because there is only one possible moral conclusion for action in a given situation.

what the fuck would ever make you think that morality (what the right thing to do is) is fucking relative? the right thing to do is what it is and it is not other than what it is.

fucking morons...

>Why is moral relativism false? What are your arguments against it?


Person A: Killing babies is wrong.
Result: Killing babies is wrong

Person B: Killing babies is acceptable.
Result: Killing babies is acceptable.

Conclusion: Killing babies is wrong and acceptable.

>????
>In other words, 2 is an even and odd number, and fire is wet.

You are missing the role of morality. Adding on to what I said in , if someone is happy in the moment, it is entirely possible that they are doing something immoral. Morality guides people to do what's best for themselves, even if they don't understand the reasoning. To use just one of your examples, being "filled with heroin" is going to have a damaging effect on a person's health and ability to interact with other people. Therefore, it is actually not in that person's best interests to live like this.

Nope, both of those are definitely wrong in my mind

What's not always clear is how to define murder and stealing. War and taxation are things

Saying that war is or can be a kind of murder or that taxation is a kind of stealing doesn't make the definitions of murder or stealing unclear, but if you can't think of a relative argument for when these things might be morally good, then I am failing to see why you claim that morality is subjective.

>>Hume's argument that "ought" statements can't be derived from "is" statements seems very reasonable to me.

Non-moral descriptive facts cannot lead to moral prescriptive facts.

We can accept that 2+2 doesn't imply veganism, but if we pretend for a to accept for fact that killing outside of self-defense is morally wrong, then it follows that killing animals for food is morally wrong.

>What's not always clear is how to define murder and stealing
Murder is killing someone unjustly. The only time it is just to kill someone is to defend life, whether that is yours or others.

Stealing is taking something that is not yours, That one shouldn't need explanation, it's rather simple.

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E

Satanism, Occultism, or Dark Luciferianism is a network of individuals worldwide that come from all walks of life to conspire an increase in collective power for the benefits of greater personal gains. They are the adversaries or the adversary, because they oppose a mass understanding of the psyche and human consciousness. These people buy into this negative polarity of conscience because no one taught them the positive polarity as a child.

Here are their four main tenants:

1st Tenant = Self-Preservation - an extreme form of selfishness to advance ones personal gains at any cost, and if you harm others don’t get caught.
2cd Tenant = Moral Relativism - no right and wrong exist in nature.
3rd Tenant = Social Darwinism - man is an animal, therefore he can act like one.
4th Tenant = Eugenics - elite decides who lives and dies.

They were regularly raped, tortured, and forced to eat blood, semen, and fetuses as children. These are many of our public leaders today, and they are doing this to their children.

You come to bear witness to the truth, you cannot unsee this. It is now your duty to continue into the journey of doing what is right. God doesn't care, he probably isn't real. But the truth is real and objective. You can count 2 atoms and conclude there are 2. Truth is what the ultimate aim of a society ought to be. Good luck.

>a value is always a value to somebody, for some purpose
how do you know this?

>values are personal beliefs and opinions and there is no objective arbitration possible
what is a "personal belief"?
what is "objective arbitration"?

the term "value" is ambiguous in an act/object way
>"value" in "he has good values" means a belief that something is valuable
>"value" in "there is great value in being honest" means the property that you think something has in believing it is valuable
so "value" sometimes means "valuing" (the act or mental state) and sometimes means "valuableness" (the property you think something has when you value it)

obviously valuings are "subjective" in the trivial sense that they are mental acts of conscious subjects
but the idea that valuableness is "subjective" isn't true in the same sense, and it's not even clear what it means

Moral relativism means that no value is absolute. Therefore you can't make claims such as "all humans are valuable", "murder is wrong" or "rape is wrong" etc. All of these are value judgments and you simply can't have values with moral relativism, since that would result in logically in 'good = bad'.

>>there's no logical argument against it, without invoking something supernatural.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

But it's YOUR standards saying that.

Most people do live without hardship. Not everyone wants a mate. Not everyone wants children. Not everyone wants religion.

Its not "immoral" in some tribes to split a young boys penis in half and then use him as your gay sex slave.

But it is immoral to most actual people. Morals are not objective

It's pretty funny that moral relativists have nothing to say when a gun is pointing in their face.

>B-But please don't
Shut up cuck it's my morals to kill you.

Do you consider killing to protect yourself or your loved ones murder? What about killing in the name of your god, or your country?

This. Moral relativists aren't human.

You're a retard. You can very easily come up with absolute values based on a) survival of humans and b) minimization of suffering. You don't need anything super natural with these. You could of course disagree with the premise that survival of humanity is a good thing, or that suffering is a bad thing, but that would make you even more of a retard AND it would buy you a ticket to the gas chambers.

Yep

>murder is killing someone unjustly
Then murder is defined as immoral, the term "unjustly" can't be used if we are going to explain what it is that makes murder wrong but war right (not at all saying it can't be done)

>stealing is taking something that is not yours
So taxation is theft then? Or are there times where it is in fact justified to take somebody else's stuff?

>how do I know values are to somebody, for some purpose
It's the only coherent way to understand values. Objective values make no sense. It's an incoherent combination of words. People intuitively understand this when it comes to trivial values like valuing chocolate ice cream. Obviously the value is all in the personal taste, and only if you prefer taste to healthfulness, etc.

But they can't accept this when it comes to rape and murder, they feel the need to externalize their feelings, it is not enough for people to admit that they simply feel rape and murder are wrong

Objective arbitration is some way to decide a disagreement. So if two people disagree about the length of a stick, they can use a ruler. There is no way to objectively arbitrate a moral disagreement.

quints confirm

It's not about "consider." It isn't. Murder is the initiation of force to take a human life. Killing in self-defense is different. As for "in the name of your got or country," you're going to have to be more specific. I don't know what you're talking about.

No, I said that morality is derived from the biological needs of our species. You may not want to have children, but our species absolutely needs children or else we will die out. Therefore, moral actions will align with the successful acquisition of a mate and building a future for the next generation in a harmonious and sustainable way in society. That's an absolute statement because these outcomes can all be measured.

Those values have been explored. Survival isn't the end-all-be-all of morality, either. And the minimizing of suffering has also been explored by the Trolley problem.

Kek confirms. Sometimes I wonder how Kek can be so wise.

Checked and kek'd

There is such a thing as a just war, such as wiping out a hostile faction that wants to destroy you, such as Islam.
>So taxation is theft then?
Yes. It is never justified to take something that belongs to someone else through force or stealth.

>And the minimizing of suffering has also been explored by the Trolley problem.
wtf? Trolley problem is directly solved by the minimazition of suffering. You kill the lone fucker.

>Survival isn't the end-all-be-all of morality, either.
It is. Survival is the only meaning we have in our life. Without it there would be no point in anything, like eating, sleeping, not eating, not sleeping etc. Survival is the sole absolute morality.

>>murder is killing someone unjustly
>Then murder is defined as immoral, the term "unjustly" can't be used if we are going to explain what it is that makes murder wrong but war right (not at all saying it can't be done)
You need to remember that you're talking to non-specialists on Sup Forums. Laypeople use logical shortcuts and you know it. "Unjustly" has a well understood meaning, but obviously he should have said "in violation of the NAP." By the way, do you think that all wars are purely acts of aggression?

>>stealing is taking something that is not yours
>So taxation is theft then? Or are there times where it is in fact justified to take somebody else's stuff?
You know the answer and are just trying to draw this out.

>"ought" statements can't be derived from "is" statements
>There is no way to definitively justify why something is morally preferable, in the end you are forced to put your foot down and say "I simply prefer this".
>And that's what makes it subjective.
first quote does not imply the second, and the second quote does not imply the third
first move assumes that "ought" statements couldn't be definitively justified by other ought statements (and that there's no corresponding problem for "is" statements)
second move is false because
(1) "subjective" does not mean "not definitively justifiable"
(2) plenty of people believe "definitive justification" or knowledge is non-existent anyway but justification isn't
(3) arguing that every view concerning X is unjustifiable is arguing for radical skepticism about X, not subjectivism about X

Morality ISN'T good.
It's inflexible and not situational, because its always written 'as law' in doctrine.

ETHICS is situational, and has more nuance than THOU SHALT
and THOU SHALT NOT
eat fish on a tuesday (for instance)

>You kill the lone fucker.
And yet the overwhelming majority of people chose not to.

Define "good."

>And yet the overwhelming majority of people chose not to.
Overwhelming majority of people are also ruining their lives, destroying the planet and dooming our future. So what? The problem is solved, regardless of how suicidal or immoral majority of people are.

And now you've just made your decision relative/subjective. Nice job undermining your own argument.

Intellectually bankrupt as an argument because you're dealing with a non-consequent logical causality.
"X leads to Y" is not the case here.
Man gets into fights with people wearing blue.
Man gets beaten by a bear attempting to rescue another man.

Non logical causation.

Read up on natural law.

There are some universal laws which arise from human nature (for instance, banning murder).

Go away if you have no actual arguments, but just some pseudointellectual bullshit. My arguments are valid and if you wish to continue this conversation, you'll make your own arguments or point out the flaws in mine. Otherwise I'll just dismiss you as the retard you are.

All that is required is basic logic. If you accept the law on non-contradiction, then it is nonsense to say that X is moral is some circumstances and not moral in other circumstances. X is either moral or it is not.

So you're asserting that it's immoral to not have children?

>intellectually bankrupt
>non-consequent logical causality
Where did you learn these words that you didn't learn to tell the difference between an argument and a leading question?

>It's valid!
Yeah, too bad your premises are shit. Which is what I'm pointing out. You've said nothing about morality being universal. The only thing you've vomited from your shit-covered mouth is what you WANT to be forced on other people, your own way of thinking.

You're honestly a piece of shit and probably a useful idiot to (((them))).

>So you're asserting that it's immoral to not have children?
It's immoral to not do your best to guarantee the survival of your genes.

Its by definition hypocritical and leads to contradictions. If marrying 9-year olds is wrong in your culture you should have a rational basis for it, preferably a basis that is founded on the well-being of the society at large. If there is no moral truth and everything is up for grabs we will have chaos.

But well being of the society is not subjective, it is objective. Which is why moral relativism is evil. I feel like people get caught up in definitions. Some people define morality as subjective, I do not.

So you have no arguments. You just got BTFO'd and started to speak around the subject. You're not intelligent enough to talk to me any longer. Good bye.

Further, it's not like geographic and cultural barriers are well defined. These barriers come from the human mind, not from nature. Saying that X is moral because the action was done within an arbitrary barrier in which X is culturally acceptable is both absurd and begs the question.

Without appealing to philosophy, it is just evident in the historical record and across cultures, that morality is a function of evolving social customs. What's acceptable today may have been illegal 50 years ago and may be illegal again in the future. If the planet becomes too populated and resources become scarce, murder may become acceptable.

I don't need arguments against what you posted. What you posted was so uninformed and retarded it defeated itself.

If we're going by universal standards here then not every argument should be fit to exist. Yours is top of the list right now.

The claim is that acting in a way that goes against our measurable biological needs is immoral. If there's a way to propagate humanity into the future without having children, I'd love to hear it.

you ignored the distinction I made, so you keep letting the ambiguity of "value" confuse you

>Objective values make no sense.
you give no argument for this
objective values and subjective values are also not the only two options
a value could be neither objective nor subjective, if (a) the objective/subjective distinction is not exhaustive (i.e. if it's not a dichotomy), or (b) if the objective/subjective distinction is just a bad distinction that should be rejected
I find both (a) and (b) more likely than their alternatives

>Obviously the value is all in the personal taste
if understood literally, that is obviously a false statement
when you value something, it is not the case that the thing that is valuable is your personal taste -- but that is the literal interpretation of "the value is all in the personal taste", so you don't mean your statement literally, so then how do you mean it?
if you are right to value X, the value is in X, and if there is no value in X, you are not right to value X

>People intuitively understand this when it comes to trivial values like valuing chocolate ice cream.
aesthetic subjectivism does not imply ethical subjectivism
anyway aesthetic subjectivism is rejectable, which is something I don't blame you for not knowing since you are not a philosopher

OP I have bachelors in philosophy. I promise you moral relativism is riddled with errors. It's not considered a respectable opinion even among the most degenerate and Marxist philosophers.

>Theists: Yes! We have universal morality! We need it!
>Sam Harris: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
>Theists: NO NOT THAT ONE!

Bunch of cocksucking hypocrites.

If morality is not objective, then it is arbitrary. It is much more consistent to hold that morality is a useful fiction produced by the human mind.

>>>Sam Harris: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
Memebook

>it is just evident in the historical record and across cultures, that morality is a function of evolving social customs. What's acceptable today may have been illegal 50 years ago and may be illegal again in the future
that is a philosophical argument.
anyway, yes, people have conflicting moral views, so what?

there's even an argument that if people have conflicting moral views, relativism is false, because people's moral views can't really conflict if relativism is true
this is because if relativism is true, "X is morally wrong" just means "X is morally wrong to me", but that means if A says "X is morally wrong" and B says "X is not morally wrong", each is just referring to what is morally wrong to himself, and hence they are simply speaking past each other, not disagreeing

>subjective reasoning is random or whimsical
What?

Nice subjective reasoning you have there.

Wait what are we talking about?

I was going off that he said there has to be a way to measure morality, and i was stating that you can't because different people obviously hold different standards. We have to "agree" on some to satisfy people.

And now suddenly morality is the furthering of our genes/species? Is this not just a set of beliefs?

You can't be real.
Philosophy student/graduate _implies_ marxist.
At least in my country.

>what are you talking about
>he said
>and now suddenly

See the post ID for this post? Click on that to highlight all my posts in the thread, then scroll up to read what I already wrote about this.

What about the statement "the good ought to be pursued." Aquinas thought that this statement was self-evident. I think he may be correct.
Hume made the mistake of thinking that for a statement to be necessarily true it must be analytic. It is true that the concept of "ought" does not contain an "is", but it is a non-sequitur to conclude that therefore a necessary connection cannot exist between the two.

philosophyfag here, not a Marxist
Marxism is just one philosophy out of God knows how many, it makes absolutely no sense to think philosophers must be Marxists
everyone who disagrees with Marxism is expressing a philosophical view, and all philosophical views have representatives among philosophers

there is a difference between morality and fairness/justice

true justice is impartial to any personal point of view

something like murder or stealing is wrong in ANY culture, every culture requires laws to protect individual rights that all humans have

This. I believe genocide is a perfectly acceptable action for a government to take to protect its own people. You aren't gonna tell me I'm wrong are you? I thought morals were relative?

Your Nazi country chased out all the positivists and the only ones left was another Nazi philosopher and a bunch of continentals and frankfurters.

Kek checked! Moral Relativists are now no longer human.

Who you are is irrelevant. If you take up an argument, poorly as you have, then you will be addressed regarding it.

But it's driven by societal norms. I love dogs as pets and so do most Americans. Asians see them as a food source, the same way I see a chicken. How do you reconcile that?

How do you have good without a comparison to evil? Therefore to pursue good one must also pursue and preserve evil.

>This. I believe genocide is a perfectly acceptable action for a government to take to protect its own people.
Now you're getting it.

>You aren't gonna tell me I'm wrong are you? I thought morals were relative?
Why would I call you wrong?

Who I am isn't the issue. The problem is that you have not taken the time to understand, or perhaps even read, my argument, which I explained clearly earlier in the thread. The questions you're asking can all be answered by reading my earlier posts, which you still haven't done. I'll wait for you to either do that, or for you to admit that you have no interest in doing that.

That's morality you're describing, presuming it to be something else. Moral relativism promotes the idea that one could see theft or murder as a moral action. Without objective morality there is no law, all judgement stems back to what is and what is not moral.

I went to a Christian college in the American South. American philosophy schools are for the most part analytic schools- and my school was old-fashioned, one of the most conservative in the country. It was implicitly anti-marx and even anti-utilitarian. I know this is rare, even in America.
In Austria the continental schools hold a tight grip. I can imagine that what you're saying is true for your country.