Moral Relativism

[methamaniac]

It's a crock of shit philosophy IMO. ☺
Neitzsche would be proud with some of the statements I have read lately.
I have seen several posts on this site that have said something like.... "there is really no such thing as right or wrong" - "right or wrong do not really exist" -or "you can't make a wrong choice".
It usually sounds a lot like what Neitzsche said...
-"You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”-
A moral relativist is forced to deny that objective truth in respect to morality exists. The ironic thing tho is when they express someone has done something wrong according to their subjective view, they are are actually adhering to moral objectivity in condemning the action. When they express the way something ought to be, they are forced to borrow from a worldview that allows for objective morality- or saw off the branch on which they are hanging on. If one believes everything is truly relative in respect to morality, then they have no real foundation to condemn the moral actions of another. Humanism attempts to address this glaring contradiction in its philosophy, but also falls flat for various reasons IMO. ( but that is a discussion for another thread)

In this present day and age it seems to me that in the name of "tolerance" , morality often takes the back seat in favor of personal preference . A lot of people are afraid of being labled "intolerant" so they are hesitant to condemn anything that would have them labeled as intolerant. We see this in every level of society and especially in today's political spectrum. It's a very slippery slope IMO.
I believe many people do not even realize they are subscribing to the idea of moral relativity.
In attempt to have their cake and eat it too,
they have signed right up tho.

Anywho, what are your thoughts on moral relativism?
I'm especially interested in the opinions of those that subscribe to moral relativism.

 

[drug_mentor]

Good topic OP, I was quite pleased to sign in today and see this thread, as I had intended to make a similar one in the near future.

I disagree with moral relativism. I have never heard a convincing argument for moral relativism, most arguments which I have encountered in favour of the view (including recently on here) tend to go along these lines:

P1. Individual/group (it is the same logical argument either way) A believes X, individual/group B believes Y
P2. X and Y are incompatible
Therefore,
C. Disagreement over X and Y is a matter of opinion, there is no fact of the matter

This is invalid logic, one could just as easily conclude that either A or B's beliefs must be incorrect. It is erroneous to think that substantive conclusions about morality (or anything else) can be drawn from the mere fact that people disagree about it.

Furthermore, there are cases in which you can find superficial disagreement about morality, but if you dig a little deeper you will find that the two parties are largely in agreement. Take the case of the Callatians and the Greeks from Herodotus' History, which has been cited as a historic example which supports cultural (moral) relativism. The Greeks believed that cremating their fathers dead body was the correct thing to do, and were horrified by the idea of eating the bodies of their dead fathers. The Callatians felt that eating their dead fathers body was the correct thing to do, and were horrified at the idea of cremating them.

We could look at these two cases and think the two cultures have very different stances on this moral issue. However, if you dig a little deeper, you will find that they both agree that the bodies of their dead fathers must be disposed of in a respectful manner. The disagreement is superficial, all they truly disagree on is what the correct way to dispose of their fathers bodies respectfully is. I believe in most cases of moral disagreement, there might be some superficial differences, but if you strip the beliefs back to their core you will find there is agreement.

I look forward to the contributions of some proponents of moral relativism. I am hopeful that some more convincing arguments than the one I typically encounter will be put forth.

 

[swilow]

We could be evidence of moral relativism. That is why we prohibit murder and still consider going to war as just. Wrong actions are only wrong in context. That is, they are relative to the circumstances in which they arise. If an action has an absolute quality associated with it, that is non-negotiable, so to speak. An absolute quality has no prerequisites for manifestation. It just is. Isn't it?

Note that I am uncertain about where I stand on this, as I think all humans should be. I'm inclined to distrust anyone who claims to know absolute morality. Where does it emerge from? How did they receive it? How can I be sure they are not imposing their own self-interested values on this? What if they are wrong?

And then I can think of certain moral values which seem to be objectively wrong...


***

I must say, I hate seeing my words badly paraphrased.

 

[drug_mentor]

We could be evidence of moral relativism. That is why we prohibit murder and still consider going to war as just.

I don't see this as particularly strong evidence for moral relativism. Just because we are willing to discard morality in order to pursue our own interests through war does not mean that doing so is not wrong. Many people also feel that going to war in any circumstances is wrong, in contrast to those who believe it is just. As I addressed in my last post, we cannot infer any substantive facts about morality from the fact that people disagree. Similarly, I don't think we can infer substantive facts about morality from the fact that our behaviour is often self-contradictory when it comes to morality.

Wrong actions are only wrong in context. That is, they are relative to the circumstances in which they arise. If an action has an absolute quality associate with it, that is non-negotiable. An absolute quality has no prerequisites for manifestation. It just is. Isn't it?

Of course, context is extremely important when it comes to morality. The difference between having consensual sex and committing a rape is largely contextual.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but what I get from this passage is that you think that because we can usually find a certain context to justify certain behaviour, the behaviour cannot be said to absolutely immoral. For example, we can't say killing people is absolutely immoral, because killing in self-defense is morally permissible.

I think that this is a problem with how stringently you qualify moral facts, more than a problem for the existence of absolute moral facts. For instance, if I say that it is absolutely immoral to violate a persons right to life, when they have not otherwise forfeited their right to life, this is much harder to fault than saying that killing is immoral. This example allows for both self-defense, and even killing in war, so long as you buy in to the notion that willing combatants on either side have forfeited their right not to be killed in the conflict.

I distrust anyone who claims to know absolute morality. Where does it emerge from? How did they receive it? How can I be sure they are not imposing their own self-interested values on this? What if they are wrong?

I also distrust anyone who claims to know absolute morality, if they are claiming to know absolute morality for all circumstances. However, I find it hard to argue against the notion that there are some absolute moral truths. I don't think that it is ever okay to rape an infant, just like I don't think it is ever okay to torture an innocent person to death for fun.

In my mind, anyone who is willing to concede that there are any absolute moral facts has to admit that moral relativism is false. Moral relativism is the view that all moral judgments are relative, this position is inconsistent with the existence of even a single absolute moral fact.

I think morality emerges from the realisation that we as individuals are not more important than anyone else. Morality is about conducting yourself in a way that you do not unjustly infringe upon the rights of anyone else. It is a set of rational principles that guide actions based on the consideration of the interests of all those who will be affected by those actions.

In another thread I recently said that morality was a set of selflessly rational principles. I have since realised this is not an ideal definition. The reason for this is that although morality necessarily entails that we consider the interests of others, we do not give them equal weight to that of our own, and therefore morality is not really selfless (unless you are a utilitarian). The reason I say this is because the relevant interests of other people that we must consider are in relation to rights that they hold. Morality does not entail that we must give money away to those who might need it more than ourselves, but similarly, morality entails that we do not violate the property rights of those who need their money or possessions less than we do.

I must say, I hate seeing my words badly paraphrased.

I hope this comment was not in relation to the argument that I put in standard form in my previous post. I was not paraphrasing you, but many other people I have had conversations with about this matter, including a couple posters on this forum (not you though).

 

[methamaniac]

Good topic OP, I was quite pleased to sign in today and see this thread, as I had intended to make a similar one in the near future.

TY and thanks for thoughtful response.
I always find the subject of morality interesting.
In particular, how one arives at their conclusions on morality. ie. the divine, the natural universe, the individual/culture.

disagree with moral relativism. I have never heard a convincing argument for moral relativism

Neither have I.

. Individual/group (it is the same logical argument either way) A believes X, individual/group B believes Y
P2. X and Y are incompatible
Therefore,
C. Disagreement over X and Y is a matter of opinion, there is no fact of the matter

Yes, it is very fallacious.
I've found most people really do not even realize that they are using this logic. Cognitive dissonance makes it hard to point out at times.
I usually find the idea of morality must be fundemetally scrapped or abandoned all together to hang on to relativism.

is invalid logic, one could just as easily conclude that either A or B's beliefs must be incorrect. It is erroneous to think that substantive conclusions about morality (or anything else) can be drawn from the mere fact that people disagree about it.

Quite true. People used to disagree over the whether the shape of the Earth was round or flat, but that didn't make it logical to conclude there was no objective truth with respect.
And the Earth certainly wasn't affected by the conflicting opinions . It just keep right on being its correct shape irregardless.

Furthermore, there are cases in which you can find superficial disagreement about morality, but if you dig a little deeper you will find that the two parties are largely in agreement.

Good point , and good example.
Another would be the disciplining of children by their parents. Two different cultures may disagree on the correct way to discipline their children, but the fact remains they both agree children need discipline.

look forward to the contributions of some proponents of moral relativism. I am hopeful that some more convincing arguments than the one I typically encounter will be put forth.

Yes, I am sincerely interested in the thoughts of those that subscribe in any way to moral relativism.
I really do reserve a bit of optimism for my respectful opposition, albeit I must admit the bit is not that large. ☺

 

[methamaniac]

I'm inclined to distrust anyone who claims to know absolute morality

Then you can never condemn anything absolutely or you would distrust yourself. Do you not find anything that you conclude is absolutely wrong in relation to any circumstance it could be found in?

also distrust anyone who claims to know absolute morality, if they are claiming to know absolute morality for all circumstances. However, I find it hard to argue against the notion that there are some absolute moral truths

I think anyone would be skeptical of someone who claims to be an absolute authority on morality.

Moral relativism is the view that all moral judgments are relative, this position is inconsistent with the existence of even a single absolute moral fact

I would agree. To me, logically, this is a case where that the baby must be thrown out with the bath water.

I must say, I hate seeing my words badly paraphrased

Willow, I will again apologize if I came across in an attacking manner towards you. I can assure you my intent was to question the stance you hold in respect to your world view and nothing personal. Anytime someone questions something that makes up one's world view it can feel like it is being done in an attacking or dubious manner. This was not my intention.
I hope you can accept this.
That being said, I honestly do not believe I have misrepresented you or anyone else for that matter. If I have, please correct me with the specifics.

 

[drug_mentor]

I usually find the idea of morality must be fundemetally scrapped or abandoned all together to hang on to relativism.

I tend to agree with this. I have always thought that the logical consequence of moral relativism, philosophically speaking, is moral nihilism.

It seems to me, under the cultural version of moral relativism, that morality is downgraded from being a philosophical concept to a purely anthropological one.

 

[Jabberwocky]

great posts. I'm basically reiterating in a different perspective. When you look at the classical world we got our zeros and our ones, our trues and falses. When considering the quantum world true and false exist in superposition and are measured classically with a certain probability outcome. It's kinda like that. In other words, some paradigms don't require True or False. Intellect usually does, but we can approximate it very carefully by using suggestive words that are neither truths nor falses. New words are being created all the time to approximate new experiences. Yet still we try to see it as relative causing great suffering in the process. Consider the belief "I am one". It's hard to hold onto that belief when your experience is "I am nothing" The wormholes we create to bridge the two can be frightening but usually exist at a much higher vibration and fortunately are not accessible to most of us. Myself included.

For example, can different chakras be bridged or turned off. Yes. I read an example of alien species that turned off their heart chakras and wonder throughout space trying to find it again. I don't dismiss this stuff as nonsense, just not relevant, relatively speaking

With respect to moral relativism, take a look at Godels incompleteness theorem. We are never going to bridge all the different self-consistent axiomatic systems. Why bother. In different frameworks they can both coexist peacefully producing only minor ripples in one another. One still has to ask oneself why bother to go to such great lengths to keep the bathwater with the baby. Usually it's self-deception that keeps us anchored in two realities at once but lost in both. Fortunately it can be easily undone by upgrading the operating system and working out the bugs.

 

[methamaniac]

seems to me, under the cultural version of moral relativism, that morality is downgraded from being a philosophical concept to a purely anthropological one.

I agree, and like I saying what is right and what is wrong often takes the back seat( or in a lot of cases thrown out the back window)
My own President wants me to get to know and "try to understand" the people that most assuredly want to cut my head off.? No thanks Mr. P , its kinda hard to get know someone and discuss your differences without a head.

 

[neurotic]

morality doesn't exist absolutely, nothing is wrong, nothing is right. it doesn't matter. this does not mean we cannot be bothered by/dislike stuff.

the morals of a society usually reflect the collective feelings towards something, i.e. "abortion is wrong" because most people don't like the idea of abortion; paedophilia wasn't wrong in ancient Greece (so they say) because people were OK with it back then. nowadays, it is "wrong" because most people feel disgusted by the idea.

i think people condemning other acts and justifying it with morals comes from fear that it happens to them. no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that killing is wrong.

 

[methamaniac]

morality doesn't exist absolutely, nothing is wrong, nothing is right. it doesn't matter. this does not mean we cannot be bothered by/dislike stuff.

If nothing is wrong and nothing is right than morality doesn't really exist at all. If you believe that, you have just gave up moral relativism for moral nihilism. You have slid down that slippery slope I was talking about and don't even realize it.

morals of a society usually reflect the collective feelings towards something, i.e. "abortion is wrong" because most people don't like the idea of abortion; paedophilia wasn't wrong in ancient Greece (so they say) because people were OK with it back then. nowadays, it is "wrong" because most people feel disgusted by the idea.

The consensus of society is what determines what is morally right or wrong? I can't get behind that.

I think people condemning other acts and justifying it with morals comes from fear that it happens to them. no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that killing is wrong.

I would say it is our capacity to be empathetic that can be used as a tool to determine morality.
Fear can lead you to some terrible moral decisions.

 

[swilow]

Meth what is the source of absolute morality?

 

[Foreigner]

If consequences and punishments are removed, then watch how fast common morality degrades. We live in a society that is cohesive due to self-governance, and imaginary consequences. For every law on the books, there is some level of humanity who is allowed to not follow that law. Take the government for example. They can kill people, whether domestic or foreign, whenever they want, and get away with it. Their rules aren't the same as ours.

Let's take it to the highest level then... on a spiritual level, this is all just a dualistic experience. Right and wrong, good and bad, etc. If this is all just the One doing itself and all good things and all bad things are part of that, then who is to say what means what? It's just semantics.

Put another way... criminalized or demoralized actions happen ALL THE TIME, regardless of what we choose to call them. Morality is tied to judgment, which is a denialist way of acting like these things can be controlled. We are all totally out of control, virtually all the time. If it's not self-governance, or other humans governing us, then it's human nature. There really are no rules. Whatever can happen, does happen.

There may an objective morality, but it requires an advanced spiritual core that most people don't have.

 

[tantric]

i get into this a lot when i talk about mesoamerica. applying cultural relativism to the practices of the aztecs requires almost victorian denial of reality. okay, people, here it is - aztec art, poetry, all that - beautiful, incomparable, a treasure. i have a mayan tattoo and my living room wall once featured a mural based on an aztec codex. the religious system dominating central mexico was an abomination. if suddenly today, there appeared a valley in Antarctica with an exact replica of that society, what would we do? let it happen? they murdered thousands, tens of thousands, in bizarre and utterly hateful ways, like locking children in a cave with water so that they were forced to kill and eat each other. i don't even know what to say about autosacrifice - piercing your penis with a cord of thorns, then reading auguries in the blood splatter? that shit aint healthy, no where. human flesh was for sale in the temple markets, no big deal, just being practical. i don't really blame the Spaniards - they intervened and stopped it. then they raped and pillaged, i blame them for that. notice that that religion hasn't resurfaced AT ALL - unlike other indigenous religions. that shit was right up there with the nazis and the death camps. nuff said.

besides, when i was a mook, i tried to summon xochipilli, the god of drugs and ecstacy. motherfucker tried to eat me. i don't know what really happened, but i had bruises all over me, like i'd been picked up and slung around. to me, anytime i tried to move or escape, i'd be slung at the ground, spread eagle to the stars, ripe for cardectomy. a bum saved me - he wandered by and gave me a cig, which aborted the trip. fuck no. aztec gods eat people - avoid.

 

[methamaniac]

Meth what is the source of absolute morality?

Willz, I believe you know me well enough to know my answer. I can unquestionably say God aka the big G. The one who manifested himself in the flesh, lived a sinless earthly life, and willingly suffered physically and spiritually as he beared the weight of the world's sin.
Of course you do not have to except this answer, and I already know you won't. But that's ok, the good thing about God is he exists whether you believe in him or not.☺
Likewise, you don't have to believe in God to use his moral law. It is written in our soul, and God's holy spirit works through your conscience to convict you so you will be convinced of his truth. It's your choice to accept this truth or deny it.
In denying God's existence, you lose the ability to ground an objective moral law in something that transcends the physical universe. When you do away with God, something will inevitably will take his place.
You really only have a few small choices of what to base your morality in without God-
the universe, yourself, or your peers....(all fail IMO for various reasons)
You may also totally do away with the idea of moral truths, as some (sadly) do, but this also fails if you are honest with yourself.

I had planned on keeping this a strictly philosophical discussion, but I guess God is so ingrained in my world view that its hard to exclude him from the big philosophical questions.
And you did ask ☺

 

[swilow]

^No, that's cool. I respect your answer.

But I accept that is what is usually meant by absolute morality, at least in terms of its origin. My biggest dilemma here is: how can any human translate the morality of god accurately? Why should I trust anyone human who claims to know the mind of god? I feel like this morality is inherently tainted by the medium it traverses; the fickle, emotional human. It adds further reason to distrust the claims of those who say they know absolute morality. People have biases, and that is a fact. Given that, how can any human really claim to know absolute morality, free of their own accumulated predjudice/bias? I love playing with my 1 year old niece, who has no morality. She is yet to learn it, IMO. Absolute morality from god, and built into the human machine, should not need to be learned or accumulated; it would already fully exist. If an indivual must learn right and wrong, it is not absolute but relative to the context that they have existed/grown within, relative to the data fed into their neurons at specific times.

Behavioural modernity has existed for maybe 50,000, anatomically modern humans for around 200,000. Children have been raised by wolves and they don't care about idea's of property and good manners. Humans need to be taught right and wrong and if we aren't we don't know it. That cannot be absolute.

I had planned on keeping this a strictly philosophical discussion, but I guess God is so ingrained in my world view that its hard to exclude him from the big philosophical questions.
And you did ask

The topic was you dismissing moral relativism. Any discussion about absolute morality is inherently about god (IMO).

In my mind, anyone who is willing to concede that there are any absolute moral facts has to admit that moral relativism is false. Moral relativism is the view that all moral judgments are relative, this position is inconsistent with the existence of even a single absolute moral fact.

Why does it have to be so binary?

I propose something a bit different. What if only certain moral instruction is absolute, and others are relative? Sexual morality is utter relative to the culture it arises within. The ethics which dissuade us from eating other peoples faces are useful, no matter what your cultural millieu is.

I hope this comment was not in relation to the argument that I put in standard form in my previous post. I was not paraphrasing you, but many other people I have had conversations with about this matter, including a couple posters on this forum (not you though).

Not at all, I was talking to meth who was paraphrasing comments I made in another thread. I've really enjoyed your posts dude

***

There is a beauty in moral relativism. It means you have the ultimate power to live a life that you want, free of other people telling you that you're wrong.

 

[drug_mentor]

My own President wants me to get to know and "try to understand" the people that most assuredly want to cut my head off.�� No thanks Mr. P , its kinda hard to get know someone and discuss your differences without a head.

This post has made me pause to consider what your motives are in creating this thread. I hope you didn't make this thread in order to feel justified in harbouring some kind of bias. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but it sounds like there is some anti-Islamic sentiment behind this comment.

I agree with you that moral relativism is false, but I want to put it out there that I have nothing against Muslims (or any religious or ethnic group) and if you do, I hope you do not take my arguments as being in support of that.

morality doesn't exist absolutely, nothing is wrong, nothing is right. it doesn't matter. this does not mean we cannot be bothered by/dislike stuff.

the morals of a society usually reflect the collective feelings towards something, i.e. "abortion is wrong" because most people don't like the idea of abortion; paedophilia wasn't wrong in ancient Greece (so they say) because people were OK with it back then. nowadays, it is "wrong" because most people feel disgusted by the idea.

i think people condemning other acts and justifying it with morals comes from fear that it happens to them. no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that killing is wrong.

In regards to the survival comment, just because morality has utility does not mean it does not exist. Many things which exist also happen to be useful.

It seems like you might also be trying to employ this argument:

P1. Individual/group A believes X, individual/group B believes Y
P2. X and Y are incompatible
Therefore,
C. Disagreement over X and Y is a matter of opinion, there is no fact of the matter

If that is the case, you are using invalid logic. You can refer to post #2 of this thread for more detail on this.

There may an objective morality, but it requires an advanced spiritual core that most people don't have.

I don't think this comment is very fair to non-spiritual people. I am not remotely spiritual, yet I seem to be one of the bigger proponents of the existence of an objective morality in this forum.

Morality can be arrived at through philosophical means just as easily as it can through spiritual ones. In my experience, those who find it through the former method have a tendency to be more sincere and less judgmental.

Behavioural modernity has existed for maybe 50,000, anatomically modern humans for around 200,000. Children have been raised by wolves and they don't care about idea's of property and good manners. Humans need to be taught right and wrong and if we aren't we don't know it. That cannot be absolute.

People have to be taught to do science, but through science we can learn truths about the world. I think the main reason children need to be taught right and wrong is simply because many people don't fully develop empathy until later in life. Morality is about recognising you are not special and should not violate anybody else's rights, a self-absorbed child is never going to reach this conclusion. I don't think this means that absolute right and wrong are things which can't be said to exist.

The topic was you dismissing moral relativism. Any discussion about absolute morality is inherently about god (IMO).

I strongly disagree with this, for reasons I touched on in an earlier post. I don't want to get back in to that because it would be taking the thread a little off-topic, but I would like to note that I believe quite strongly in some absolute moral facts. I have identified as an atheist all my life, until recently when I started to identify more as agnostic. You would be hard pressed to find someone less convinced of the existence of God than me.

Why does it have to be so binary?

I propose something a bit different. What if only certain moral instruction is absolute, and others are relative? Sexual morality is utter relative to the culture it arises within. The ethics which dissuade us from eating other peoples faces are useful, no matter what your cultural millieu is.

It has to be so binary because the literal definition of moral relativism is the belief that all morality is relative. People who argue against moral relativism are not generally arguing that there is no such thing as subjective morality, they tend to be arguing that not all morality is relative. Moral relativists disagree with this position by definition.

I agree with you completely in regards to certain moral matters being relative, but I strongly believe that there are others which are absolute. I elaborated on some of the reasons I felt this to be the case in the suicide thread recently, and don't want to take up space by hashing it out again.

There is a beauty in moral relativism. It means you have the ultimate power to live a life that you want, free of other people telling you that you're wrong.

I can think of two ways to interpret this. The first is that you are saying that believing moral relativism is true is liberating, because you don't have to worry about criticisms from other people. I am not sure how convinced I am by that line of reasoning, I tend to think those who live by a strict moral code don't spend too much time worrying about the criticisms other people level at them either.

The other way I can see to interpret it, is you are saying that if everyone subscribed to moral relativism there would be no more righteous moral condemnation in the world. I don't think that this idea holds up to scrutiny. If moral relativism is true, then anything goes, people can decide that it is good to discriminate against those whom they disagree with, and under the doctrine of moral relativism there would be no objective moral fact to say this was wrong.

Moral relativism on the surface looks like a belief system which promotes tolerance, but when you consider it a bit further you will realise that moral relativism necessarily entails that we have no simple tool with which to condemn those who are intolerant.

 

[tantric]

how about this - human rights are universal. that's the point. any culture that denies its constituents basic human rights is dysfunctional. i don't care what your people believe, you don't get to sacrifice children to Cthulhu. human beings are not property to be bought and sold. women's genitals are not to be mutilated - or men's for that matter. etc.

 

[neurotic]

If nothing is wrong and nothing is right than morality doesn't really exist at all. If you believe that, you have just gave up moral relativism for moral nihilism. You have slid down that slippery slope I was talking about and don't even realize it.

i'm sorry man, but if what i believe characterizes me as a moral nihilist, than i wasn't a moral relativist in the first place. i did not slid down no slippery slope. i didn't post to defend moral relativism

The consensus of society is what determines what is morally right or wrong? I can't get behind that.

how not? the aztecs thought it was OK to sacrifice thousands of their people, so in their society, human sacrifice wasn't wrong. in our modern society, it is wrong. just like many other things that were frowned upon in certain societies, but not in others, like homosexualism, polygamia, alcohol, etc... i don't believe in absolute morality. things need a human observer for them to be morally wrong or right.

In regards to the survival comment, just because morality has utility does not mean it does not exist. Many things which exist also happen to be useful.

you're distorting my words, this is not what i meant. i did not said that moral is useful hence it doesn't exist. in my first sentence i was trying to say that no act is inherently wrong or right (there is no "absolute morality"), and in my second sentence i was stating that what is perceived as wrong or right by a society is defined how people feel about it.

it's an OK way to determine the rules i guess, if you believe in democracy.

you were saying that just because there is disagreement about whether or not something is morally wrong or right it does not mean that there is no absolute morality? tell me how do you find out what is wrong and what is right scientifically then

 

[drug_mentor]

how not? the aztecs thought it was OK to sacrifice thousands of their people, so in their society, human sacrifice wasn't wrong. in our modern society, it is wrong. just like many other things that were frowned upon in certain societies, but not in others, like homosexualism, polygamia, alcohol, etc... i don't believe in absolute morality. things need a human observer for them to be morally wrong or right.

I have already addressed why this argument employs invalid logic. If you insist on using it, you could at least address the relevant comments and make a convincing argument as to why this logic works.

you're distorting my words, this is not what i meant. i did not said that moral is useful hence it doesn't exist. in my first sentence i was trying to say that no act is inherently wrong or right (there is no "absolute morality"), and in my second sentence i was stating that what is perceived as wrong or right by a society is defined how people feel about it.

it's an OK way to determine the rules i guess, if you believe in democracy.

you were saying that just because there is disagreement about whether or not something is morally wrong or right it does not mean that there is no absolute morality? tell me how do you find out what is wrong and what is right scientifically then

I was trying to extract an argument from your post which I hadn't already demonstrated was false. If what I extracted was not what you meant, then I stand corrected. It would be nice if you could provide a logically valid argument for your position.

I have already touched on how I believe one determines objective morality. I am happy to go in to a bit more detail, but I would like you to actually defend your own views first.