Moral Relativism. It may be right but it must be wrong.

There is no way to define the good unfortunately. But to demonstrate that a relativist is contradictory, one does not need to define the good. The relativist says that individuals get to define for themselves either the good or at least what belongs to the good. This premise creates contradiction.

Thus, without ever having a definition of the good, the relativist can be proved contradictory.

Good is like beauty. Each person defines beauty for themselves (of course influenced by their upbringing and culture).

How is this contradictory?

Does anyone recognize this as the issue from Genesis 2:17: "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it. . . . "

It could simply be allegorical, of course; but it seems to indicate that to eat of the tree would mean over riding their inborn conscience.

Let's say:
Person A defines the good as the category of things that are purple.
Person B defines the good as the category of furry animals with four legs.

Are Persons A and B referring to the same idea?

Makes sense, but underscores the dilemma.

Nope. Read it. Understood it. Didn't agree with it.


My example was directly on point. Read it again. Take it slowly.

At my age, I take everything slowly.

The problem is not that you don't recognize the difference between logical consistency and factual truth. Apparently you do. The problem is that you contended that moral relativists accept everyone's factual assumptions as equally true (if they're pure relativists) or equally "neither true nor false" (if they're qualified relativists). But they don't. Joefromchicago's murderer example, for which the unicorn example serves as a preparation, adequately explains why they don't, and why that matters.

I don't get where you are going with that, but purple animals with fur and four legs are freakin' awesome.

Let's use the example of what makes beautiful music (since it is a little less vague then "good").

I can listen to music that I feel is moving and powerful. For me this is jazz, or gospel. Other people get the same feeling with symphonies or opera. Classical music simply isn't beautiful to me. I don't even understand Sitar music. I feel like an uncultured lout saying so, but it sounds like little more than noise to me (I do pretend to like it in certain circles).

I am sure that the feeling I get from listening to music I consider beautiful is the same feeling that people get from listening to Bethoven or Wagner or anyone else, but it isn't the music I consider beautiful.

So the idea of "meaning" in music is the same, but the music that inspires it is quite different.

There is no contradiction here. Different people have different ideas about what beauty is.

And I sufficiently responded to this issue in my previous response:


Quote from my previous response:
_________________________
Almost everyone, including I, would conclude that both Person 1 and Person 2 is being logically consistent if say they had the following beliefs:

Person 1:
Feeding a person is always good
A child is a person
therefore
Feeding a child is always good

Person 2:
Torturing and murdering a person is always good
A child is a person
therefore
Torturing and murdering a child is always good


Now everyone agrees that Person 1 and Person 2 are being logically consistent with their beliefs. The two logic chains follow the rules of logic to the letter.

But a relativist says more...
______________________

Let's go back to my original question.. You kind of side stepped.

Person 1 defines the good as the category of things that are purple.
Person 2 defines the good as the category of furry animals with four legs.

Are they conveying the same idea or two different idea?

I thought I answered, I think this example is a little vague because the word "good" can mean pretty anything (unless you mean morally good). I thought my response about "good" music (which is a real example rather than a made up one about purple hairy beasts) was a good one. But I will play along.

They are both conveying the idea of "goodness" right? I don't really know what you are asking.

I don't think they do. What more than "both beliefs are internally consistent"would a relativist say about these two persons?

Thanks Thomas,

I don't like it when people put words in my mouth.

No - not exactly. Both Person 1 and Person 2 are using the word "good," but they are using that word to describe two completely different ideas. One is talking about purple things. The other is talking about furry animals.

This is just like one person pointing at a dog and saying "look apple!" and another person pointing at a cucumber and saying "look apple!" Although they are using the same word - because they have defined that word differently, when they use that word, they are conveying two completely different ideas.

Thomas - before answering your question - to your original point. I just want to set this straight first -

My quote addresses the issue that Joe raised in his response. Yes? I already discussed the idea that a relativist is merely looking to see that a belief is logically consistent. Joe's response simply causes me to have to rehash my previous response.

The reason for that is that you are using the word "good" which is so vague it has no meaning. What if we use a more specific word, like "beauty"?

Something that I consider beautiful is something that gives me enjoyment or makes me happy.

The word "beautiful" means the same thing for you and I even though the things that you consider beautiful might be very different than the things I consider beautiful.

Would you reply that way if "good" is not in the "thing" you point to but in the relation between "thing" and "person" ? because good is good even if where good applies is not the same...I suppose there must be a symmetrical proportionality to establish what is good between person and thing...an herbivore will find the same value of "good" in grazing a carnivore will find in eating meet...the relation is proportional for good being a valid description...the function "good" is the same.

Max, let's put "beauty" aside for one moment. Address the original topic.

So you concede that if each person defines "good" then 2 people can assign that one word to two different ideas?

------------------------
Now - when you spoke about beauty, you said "The word 'beautiful' means the same thing for you and me..."

Yes. The word beauty has one definition that applies across the board. Each person does not give it a different definition. Rather, it has one definition.

Just to clarify


Person 1 says things that are purple are beautiful
Person 2 says furry animals with four legs are beautiful.

I argue that the word "beautiful" is refers same to the same thing in both cases. It is something that brings enjoyment to each person.