A perfect god can not exist?

I mean Ken I don't even need to appeal to any other philosopher to understand this notion:

For a moral relativist, the only reason to do (or not do<---probably more importantly not do) something is to avoid the consequences from others. Otherwise they'd just do whatever the heck they want and not give a darn, if they believe they're right then that's good enough. Anarchy would ensue. maybe not among virtue seeking philosophers who espouse moral relativity, but on the whole...anarchy would ensue....unless of course some of them "ganged" up so that they could impose a "might"

That really is not good enough. Spinoza was a subjectivist, but not a moral relativist. I take it, then, that you cannot name even one moral relativist who has held (as part of his moral relativism) that might makes right. Is that true?

I agree with your diagnoses of what Moral Relativism and Subjectivism say as Moral Theories. But a person's motivations and reasons for doing something is an entirely different matter.

Further, why would cultural anarchy necessarily ensue if Cultural Relativism or Subjectivism were true? You have to distinguish between which theory is true, and what would result if people believed such a theory were true. This is now a factic, scientific, or sociological question--and has nothing to do with Theory anymore. If you want to know what cultural relativism or subjectivism looks like in social practice when people believe they are the true moral theories, just take a look at the behavioral practices of so many Americans who believe these theories of morality.

I know Krumple.
Krumple is a moral relativist.
Krumple said "might makes right"
Therefore, I know someone who is a moral relativist who has said might makes right.

Is that good enough?

I have not personally read a single philosophical work that I can remember well enough to discuss(I've read some Plato and Descartes I know) without looking something up online or remembering something I've already read from the web or on this site. Nor do I own any philosophical works or references. In fact I don't know a single thing about Spinoza beyond the fact that researching "might makes right"(I was in a debate with someone a week or so ago where the other guy was accusing me of espousing that position) brought up his name....

so let me google it real quick for you................

google-ing
google-ing

POWER AND DESIRE IN THE POLITICAL ONTOLOGY OF SPINOZA AND DELEUZE/GUATTARI

For a moral relativist, the only reason to do (or not do) something is to avoid the consequences from others. Otherwise they'd just do whatever the heck they want and not give a darn.

"If two men unite and join forces, the together they have more power, and consequently more right against other things in nature, than either alone; and the more there be that unite in this way, the more right will they collectively posses",

Baruch Spinoza

This passage is quite worthless unless we know what Spinoza means by "right". Does he mean moral right? I doubt it . I think he just means that they will be able to enforce their will if they are stronger that their opponents. And, of course, that is true.

I'm not sure how to Read Spinoza on this matter.

But if cultural relativism is true, then it is also true that might does determine which cultural code of ethics is the correct code of ethics.

And that is a true result any cultural relativist must accept. It falls right out Cultural Relativism as a Moral Theory.

I don't see how that view implies the universal moral position that might is right for all societies. In fact, that view would conflict with moral relativism which, or course, denies that there is a universal moral truth for all societies.

But cultural relativism is not a moral theory. It is a socio-anthropological theory. It say just that different cultures have different beliefs about values (and that those beliefs sometimes conflict). The companion moral theory is moral relativism, which says that what is believed in a particular society is correct, relative to that society. That right and wrong (good and bad) are relative to particular societies. I don't see how that view implies the universal moral position that might is right for all societies. In fact, that view would conflict with moral relativism which, or course, denies that there is a universal moral truth for all societies.

ding ding ding. Thus why relativism fails.

unless a relativist appeals to might makes right he just has to let the world happen to him. because in such a case we are all a culture of 1

I really don't understand that. The fact that one person can impose his will on others does not make him right. And no moral relativist would hold that was universally right, since no moral relativist would hold that any principle was universally right.

I really don't understand that. The fact that one person can impose his will on others does not make him right.

And no moral relativist would hold that was universally right, since no moral relativist would hold that any principle was universally right.

But if no common moral principle is universally right, then it is impossible for one culture to appeal to any higher principle to make moral case against another. And hence, might does make right if one culture conquers and assimilates another.

But if no common moral principle is universally right, then it is impossible for one culture to appeal to any higher principle to make moral case against another. And hence, might does make right if one culture conquers and assimilates another.

if he believes he's right and moral relativism is true....how can he be wrong?

john brown could move to a culture that believes murder is wrong and he could start murdering people and unless they think might makes right then who are they to tell him he's actually wrong?

it's just his way hes from a different culture

How does that conclusion follow from that premise? A perfectly Christian society would not believe that might makes right, and therefore, that principle would not be correct for that society. And even if the Christian society did conquer another society, that Christian society would not believe that might makes right.

How does that conclusion follow from that premise? A perfectly Christian society would not believe that might makes right, and therefore, that principle would not be correct for that society. And even if the Christian society did conquer another society, that Christian society would not believe that might makes right.

Thesis: Every culture determines what is morally right relative to that culture, so,

Culture A believes A is true.
Therefore, A is true relative to culture A.

Culture B believe ~A is true.
Therefore, ~A is true relative to culture B

A conquers B. Culture becomes A/B

Therefore, the might/force/command of A makes A true for sub-culture B.

So, the might of A determines what is right for sub-culture B.

It appears as though you have come around a little with my argument? But like I said, I am not a advocate of this system. Even though I argue it, I am only trying to point out that the loudest and people with the biggest resolve get their way. It doesn't mean that their way is the right way, it just means they were able to out muscle their opposition.

Christian's do not espouse moral relativism so this analogy is erroneous.

No, they do not. But the moral relativist still holds that in every society, what is believed right is right (for that society). And, therefore, the MR would hold that was true for the Christian society. Remember, the MR is not a member of the Christian society, and it is he who is making the argument. So what you say is irrelevant.

But I don't agree with it. There is no argument supporting the thesis to begin with.

Even though Cultural Relativism is true.
Cultural Moral Relativism is false.

The latter does not follow from the first, so the argument is invalid. So there is no good argument for Cultural Moral Relativism