Try and prove why moral relativism is NOT a realistic view of the world

Try and prove why moral relativism is NOT a realistic view of the world.

Try and prove why it is

Killing black people can be ok and not ok at the same time

It means I can kill all moral relativists until there are no more, making it disappear.

Morals are societal constructs made by people. They are subjective to that specific group of people because of their shared history and other factors.

Reality is objective. It is entirely independent from the will of humans and has existed before we were here, and will continue to exist after we're gone. Reality has no objective morals, as morals are human constructs.

Imposing human created constructs of morality onto objective reality doesn't work, so there's no fully objective moral.

Because it degrades to a system where a given action can be both ethical and unethical?

Take a philosophy class.

>Reality is objective
There is zero evidence to support that claim. Evidence is actually going the other way. The observer doesn't just passively witness reality, but actually creates it through the act observation. Schrodinger already explained this.

If reality is objective, we have no way of knowing this. Kant's early work focuses on this.

Sage in case I'm replying to a bot thread.

So if reality is subjective I could kill you and all other relativists where you stand, because i felt like it, what are consequences but a moral construct right?. Once you're all dead, and nobody stopped me because that would be oppressive to my whims as a mixed race person, who will be left to push relativism?

That applies to every single philosophy and ideology.

except they are illegal and frowned upon in all/ most of those except yours.

That is not how quantum theory works.

It is realistic but it is not useful

How can I believe an ideology whose sole design/use was to "win"/cheat arguments over people to gain power?

The only way to allow for different moralities to coexist in one place is to set boundaries. We can accept a baseline as to what shouldnt be acceptable in any worldview, for example rape, and deem all that approves of rape as worldviews subjected to ridicule and limitation.

If we don't choose that route we will have to accept all moralities are acceptable, but that it is the population of a specific nation that determines what is acceptable or not; No interventionism, but also no tolerance of any cultural traditions we here deem barbaric.

Result: niggers will always be imoral scum.

fucking this. If we don't have boundaries all relativists will be raped and murdered into submission for shits and giggles.

>he defends bear bile and adrenaline release/animal torture

Why do care about a apparent factual statement so much? You're so hot and bothered when someone says
>moral relativism is NOT a realistic view
Is it because you think you've somehow caught a logical incontinuity in their thought process? Or you think they're lying?

You attempt to use your God given cognition to break moral objectiveness, yet dismiss the entire foundation of philosophy or logical consistent thought, which IS a moral objective value in order to manifest it... THE TRUTH.

Cognition must predate the senses, else cognition is just a accumulation of sensory input which nullifies said conclusion of itself, since it's devoid of Truth and is just circular logic.

Are all systems of justice equal ? let's say you are the victim of a violent crime, then the state punishes you, let's say, with the death sentance, for being the victim, would you feel this to be reasonable, as a moral relatvist I'm guessing you're ok with it.

moral relativism:

Brains are physical objects and are influenced in consistent ways by the physical world. How things affect our brains doesn't just matter, it what it means for something to matter. There are objective ways to decrease or increase the positive state of a human brain. There are objective ways (more than one) to improve the state of whole societies. People with abnormal brains (psychopaths, masochists) who may enjoy pain and suffering are like the morbidly obese: They haven't discovered a new form of morality, they are just sick. Just as the obese haven't discovered a new form of health.

>Imposing human created constructs of morality onto objective reality doesn't work, so there's no fully objective moral.
We are objectively human, an objective reality of being human is that we try & avoid pain & suffering, a moral system that deliberately imposes pain & suffering is objectively worse than one that doesn't, moral relativism is irrational.

Why are these "College students" so retarded/ naive/easily manipulated?

Material reality is not equal to social reality, which is created in consensus, depending on the population context as u say, and also based on the material world since is the only thing we know.

I believe moral relativism is the right path. As philosophical perspectivism (leibniz, nietzsche) says, there are diverse points of understanding "reality" or "what is true", of course not all are valid. The thing is that actual reality is the summation of all this shards of reality.

you can find something that is considered by the overwhelming majority of humans as bad and go from there. I dont think you can make some sort of cosmic moral if you mean this by objective.

they're young and impressionable

I was 18 when they pushed this shit on me... I didn't fall for it.

you can justify everything that way. cannibalism? paedophilia? yeah why not? who am I to judge?

Can you justify gassing Jews?

But people who live in, and push suffering upon the world are sick. You want to share this sickness? You're like those aids chasers who want to "catch the struggle" lmao you can't make up this level of crazy.

sure

Not an arguement, that ends suffering you revel in it.

I asked if moral relativism was realistic, not if it's pleasant. Discovering the Earth is not the center of the universe is very unpleasant, but it's also true.

>Morals are societal constructs made by people.
you won't fool me

>Morals are societal constructs made by people

Nope. Morality is derived from behavioral evolution of social animals with higher cognitive functions.

Most of our golden rules and strong morals are based off of what's best for the tribe and the individual.

>Try and prove why moral relativism is NOT a realistic view of the world.
I'll use the analogy of a painter.
Moral Objectivists have a favourite color, they think this color is the best color. one paints a beautiful work in red, another a beautiful work is blue, they argue about which is beautiful work is
better.
Moral Relativists Mix everything together and have this disgusting greyish mishmash, they say its just as good as every other piece of art every created, and then shit themselves and call that art too.

this is why you are a masochistic crazy person that should a) be institutionalized or b) be put down like a dog.

Your point?

This. my pet bird knows that pain and suffering is bad for him and me.

op is dumber than a parrot

post pic of pet birdo

there is no way to prove nor disprove this

Without the slightest doubt.

>Your point?
One view leads to greatness, the other, shit.

Dominance hierarchies are real

>Try and prove why moral relativism is NOT a realistic view of the world.
because, that's, just, like, your, opinion, man.

So you have the authority to deem what is great and what is shit?

...

Oh I must be insane for choosing to ignore my instincts and what feels and rather follow my intellect and rational thinking.

Oh what a crime.

The morals that Christianity bestows upon us is enough.

Anyone who fears coming near the light, is in fear their sins shall be exposed.

These faggots need to be put back in the closet.

my pet bird has better instincts so yes

because other cultures are quantifiable and objectively better than others.

For example, i'll just juxtapose two of the most differing cultures I can think of:
The tribe in Papua New Guinea where drinking the cum of an elder is a right of passage to become a warrior and Norwegians.

>Discovering the Earth is not the center of the universe is very unpleasant
In what way is that unpleasant ?

it's self contradicting

that's pretty much the entire argument in a nutshell. Any argument which posits that something is both true and false simultaneously is illogical. Moral relativism might as well be moral nihilism, they both evaluate to the same consequence.

So out of the countless thousands of religions and beliefs in the world, Christianity is the best one to follow? I'm sorry but a claim like that needs a shit ton of evidence backing it.

It makes humanity realize they aren't as important as once thought. Thinking we are at the center of creation grants us some form of transcendence, and that felt nice. We lost that when we learned the Earth is not the center.

that's the thing with you fucking people all the rules and evidence for us none for you.

Feels evil man.

They are correct that we do not have any evidence that reality is objective and almost correct in the second sentence. The arguments being made in the sciences are becoming increasingly skeptical over the possibility that we could ever even know if objective reality exists.

Not exactly true. There are several different interpretations of quantum mechanics. He has stated one of them. They are all equally valid (or invalid depending on how you view things). How you interpret quantum mechanics doesn't actually change any of the results from it.

Man, good thing for you the life/death/resurrection if Jesus is not only the best attested case in ancient history, but the best documented miracle event in human history.

Not enough for you? Bummer. May the Holy Spirit soften your heart to the will of the Father.

Pretty sure your opinion on culture is null and void when you're an american mutt

Logically, the human behavior that allows more humans to be created would be better. That's the natural instinct of all living things, to live and multiply.

Technically the most successful culture would be in China, because it allowed and supported the highest human population in the world.

good birb.

Your instincts don't necessarily constitute a valid system of morality though do they, Jeffrey Dahmer's instincts told him to kill people, rape there corpses then eat them.

not us, but history.

Are you going to sit there and say the Aborigines' way of life is equal to the western world's way of life?

Such an argument is laughable. One builds fake planes out of sticks and leaves to lure planes, so they may capture one and fly it to their ancestors.
The other conquered the entire world.

Western way is better, without a doubt.
Or was until people like you started peddling pigshit and called it kosher.

Christianity conquered the world.
Checkmate Atheists.

>uses modern examples to prove a point involving all of human history
>doesn't understand why people laugh at her

btw folks, this is a woman arguing.

not an argument, he was mentally sick, society agreed, that why he was jailed and killed in prison.

Not really, learning that the earth is not at the centre of the universe shows a progression in scientific knowledge, therefore increases human pride, we feel much more important for having been smart enough to gain that level of understanding than we did floundering around in the dark ages when everything we knew was based on guess work & superstition.

This.
See we think the west is the best and we build it.
I know Saudis that think the east is the best and they build it.
The Moral Relativists... don't. They have no vision. No skill. Can't lead. Can't follow. They're impotent nihilists.
They're what every great religion and philosophical thinker has ever warned against.

Do you really hold this position? It seems very juvenile and not thought through at all.

Consider this: Focus only on producing more humans and you will soon produce more humans than your society can sustain. In fact, isn't it better to have a population of 100 happy people than 200 unhappy ones? Clearly the argument is more complex and there's no single solution.

If you're not convinced consider this: The way to produce most humans most efficiently would be to inseminate girls as soon as possible and as often as possible. Would you consider a society where girls are (forcefully) impregnated the second they begin to bleed and don't spend a minute non pregnant if they don't have to the optimal society? I would hope not.

>I refuse to acknowledge rational arguments that defeat my world view. Go ahead and try to get me to see reason. I'm such a fucking retard that I like to pretend this proves something, even though I don't believe in proof because I refuse to accept that anything is correct or incorrect except my own self-serving beliefs.

I can convince you that you're wrong with a bullet. Physics doesn't bend to your delusional leftist bullshit.

SAGE

>he was mentally sick, society agreed
And society might agree the same for you.

>cannibal tribes are equal to modern society

I will never justify something that is harming me or my people. That doesn't mean u can't use the same methods those sick fucks use for their goals. I just don't because i'm not a monster. But if I were I would get many benefits over the kind, also bad consequences like loosing my human condition. All is connected, human world is a giant living being, and those people are the overgrowing cancer cells.

Is not about justifying at all. In a primitive cannibalistic tribe there is a social consensus of eating people being "moraly good", but

Your freedom of acting is there, then we create clusters of ideas upon the individual action. There are different communities with different interests and principles, your freedom ends where harming other ideological communities start, mostly because they will retaliate.
What does this goes for? We are nothing but animals with adquired experience and own evolutive path that divert from nature. Morals are created for the need of coexistence, anyways in the end it is all just about power competition like has always happened even in our animal origins. Now we fight eachother from an ethnocentrist point of view (my race/culture/whatever is better than yours and I am self-legitimated to rule the world and expand my ideas), common morals (not relative ones but objective ones) are what keep us going.

except they haven't yet or i'd have my internet privileges revoked in jail you mental midget

>Once you're all dead, and nobody stopped me because that would be oppressive to my whims as a mixed race person, who will be left to push relativism?
First off, anyone could stop you because that's how subjective morality works.
Secondly, it is NO surprise that the faggots who hide behind templar flags are nonwhite.

The true zombie holocaust

solphism is the only way to go, aka simulation theory.

>when you're an American mutt
I'm confused by what you mean. Are you saying that because American culture is mixed I can't comment on cultural relativism? Even if it is mixed(which it isn't) it would still be a on it's own unit, albeit made from others--and could be compared to other cultures.

But I'm not sure if you're aware, American culture isn't mixed at all, it's just an offshoot of anglo culture, little influence from african, asian, indian has permeated American culture at all except for superficial things like food, maybe.

We're a western democracy, we come straight from greek thought, the enlightenment and etc. the values of democracy, property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression equal treatment under the law, etc. There are no Confucianism or voodoo at our core.

What the fuck are you talking about frog, the more i read into your post the more inane it seems.

>your freedom ends where harming other ideological communities start, mostly because they will retaliate.
well in your post modern world everything is a power struggle so no problemo to kill them all if you can and it's moral because they cant retaliate. hooray!

eventually you have to eat and shit, if you shit upstream and drink the water, you will get sick.
sage goes in all fields.

My nuanced space faring culture is better than their nuanced space faring culture, because our elite fucks kids and theirs do not
>REEEEEEE

>We're a western democracy
Okay sweetie

I was speaking from a society with relativism (nihilism) as the norm.
I'm filipino and white, I pass for white. why should it matter for you anyway? your pushing a system for the niggers, spics, jews, and other evil retards to take over, and have a problem with nonwhites? sound hypocritical (like all leftists) to me.

The world runs of moral relativism. Most people just don't understand what it means.

It doesn't mean that any kind of morality is as good as any other for one.

if it's so bad why do all countries try to model themselves after us? (superficially at least what with only us having a real bill of rights and all)

Universal moral truths are relative to different people because of biological and environmental differences, and differences in given situations. Those who believe in either total universalism or total relativism have no moral compass beyond dogma

except when you are using it as an argument to gain power over others to destroy society with impotent nihilism.

the same people who propagate moral relativism cry about the hollocaust

>It doesn't mean that any kind of morality is as good as any other for one.
That's what it's taken to mean, it's the reason why not a single case of female genital mutilation has been prosecuted in the UK, despite it being illegal, because muh 'it's just their culture'.

Actually it's what is happening, x people use manipulation and subversion to prevent retaliation. That means it works (not 100% perfect bc we are here talking about this right now) but NOT that is moral. And will never be, due to the fact that retaliation is not a requirement but a decisory factor. You won't attack a community that is stronger or more capable than u.

When you apply that principle of freedom of act, you'll see is no moral because you are just invading and harming other people. Even that is relative since some species do eat eachother and more things that humans see moraly bizarre. That common moral is what keep us going and not stay like beasts, i repeat

Protip:
>Every country does not model themselves on our republic

A confusion of morality in society is causing almost all of the problems we now face as a modern society.

most of the ones that matter or have any freedom do.

>relativism
>the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.


That's all fine and good if you control all information and have means to punish those who disagree with you, because in the end it's might that determines right.

If you're just some schmuck along for the ride, you're not practicing relativism but reactionary ignorance.

It is a realistic view. It realistically helps degrade society.

Oh look, a dumbass who doesn't understand quantum physics.

>The observer doesn't just passively witness reality, but actually creates it through the act observation
Fuck off Deepak Chopra.

I think the no vision part is precisely the worst aspect. If you only live for the moment and do what feels good how are you ever going to focus and create something worthwhile? U become a slave to instinct and pleasure