Quote:The problem with your position is that you believe that all morality is subjective but you still believe in "morality."
Let's say there are two people, A and B. A believes that lying in situation X is moral. B believes that lying in situation X is immoral. Are both of them right?
I believe in beauty. The fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean that beauty doesn't exist-- and it doesn't mean that I can't find true enjoyment or meaning in what is beautiful to me.
I thought I was clear Joe. The answer is 'yes'.
Quote:2. However, that is not what objective means. And objective facts can clearly be common sense. For example, it is (these days) common sense that the earth is round as opposed to flat, and that is indeed an objective fact. Don't make up your own definitions when you agreed with the real definition earlier. I mean don't do it at all, but, you know, especially.
You have got this backwards. It was common sense that the earth was flat which is why for a long time most people accepted it without question.
We now accept that the earth is round because this is empirically testable.
Individual variances in instinct are washed out by the need for a broad code. The more complex claims reach back down to this knowledge in the end.
It amounts to the same thing. The Ovenmitt has it right.
So let's assume for a moment Moral Relativism is right. That means Christianity is true which means Moral Relativism is wrong.
I guess I'm unfamiliar with the idea of moral relativism being read as all morals (read: religious moral systems) are equally true. I'm saying that they have equally established authority. I see that as being quite different.
Take any deed deemed immoral. Spend enough time investigating and contemplating the circumstances around said deed and you can make a plausible argument for why it was understandable, if not justified, and that the perpetrator of the deed was, in some way, as much a victim as his or her victims.
Most abusive pedophiles were abused as children.
Many violent crimes are perpetrated by people who, themselves, were the long time victims of violence.
If you and your family are starving, is it immoral to steal bread?
If someone is convincingly threatening the lives of your family, is it immoral to proactively resolve the threat by killing the person you legitimately fear?
Anyone with any intelligence appreciates that not-with-standing our desire for a black and white world, reality is represented in shades of grey.
Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your point of view) Society cannot exist under the tenants of moral relativism.
With thousands and millions of people living with one another, Society cannot afford to surrender to grey. There must be hard and fast rules.
Accepting that any behavior can be right is asserting that no behavior can be wrong.
This mindset is in direct contrast to the concepts of society.
In a certain way, moral relativism is akin to quantum physics and, indeed, it was this theoretical breakthrough that contributed to post-modernist thought.
Reality is dependent upon the observer.
If this is the case, then the opinions of any particular observer are as valid as any other (even for a nano-second) in determining what reality might be.
There is a (currently) unfathomable paradox between Quantum Physics and General Relativity Physics. Clearly, this doesn't mean that one cannot be so, but it does challenge us who must operate in the "real" world rather than the "theoretical" world to attempt to reconcile what we can perceive with our senses and what we can imagine with our minds. The Holy Grail of a TOE still eludes us.
In building a bridge, developing computers, or putting a man on the moon, we have given, predominately, our collective nod to the physics of Newton and Einstein rather than Bohrs and Heisenberg.
There are actually solid, as opposed to simply theoretical, reasons to believe the latter, but for 99.9% of the earth's population, the former rules, in practice, over the latter, and yet we appreciate that Quantum Physics represents "truth" too.
Eventually there may be a TOE we can comprehend, and eventually there may be a reconciliation between moral-relativism and societal imperatives, but both are mighty challenges we may not solve for decades if not centuries to come, and in any case we will have to be wiser as well as smarter to do so.
In the mean-time, we must live within the framework of what actually works, not what should work.
Moral relativism is a great topic for discussion but it doesn't work in the currently "real" world.
But how (on earth) does it follow from the fact that the action was "understandable" (in the sense of explainable) that the action was "understandable" in the sense of excusable, let alone justifiable? Answer, it doesn't. And you are committing the elementary fallacy of equivocation. You are just confusing two different senses of the term, "understandable". Just because the action is understandable in one of the senses, it does not follow that it is understandable in a different sense of that term. And that is real logic.
I believe that moral relativism is true, however, and because of that, it is in MY best interest to have a social system based on seemingly "objective" moral codes, where everyone is accountable. I have no problem being punished if I break the moral codes of the society...that doesn't mean it is right or wrong what I did, it just means that for society to be fair, we must leave aside some of our own instincts, OR take responsibility for it.