A perfect god can not exist?

Why? Do you understand what that word means? It means that one is acting in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. How are the following two beliefs inconsistent...

1. All moral beliefs are equally valid.

2. I don't like your beliefs.

I don't see the problem. Please explain it instead of just repeating your claim over and over. I understand that you think it's hypocritical. Why?

Not without being a hypocrite you wont. If there is no objective moral standard then I'm not wrong for doing what he did(if I think I was right). And demanding others to follow your rules is simply imposing might makes right. What you think is right and what you think is wrong does not matter to anyone else besides you if relativism is true.

if you do not tolerate others behaviors then you would be acting hypocritical towards your claimed belief in moral relativism.


I placed quotes around right because for a moral relativist the term, right, only accounts for what each individual thinks is right; nothing more. I placed quotes around opinion to draw attention to the fact that opinion is ALL that matters for a relativist. Now can you follow effectively?

It has to do with even having laws in the first place. Even having laws in the first place is an appeal to might makes right. And aims to deter or punish those who hold different, yet exactly equal views. Thus the hypocritical nature. What you think is right is no more right than what I think is right. You have no more authority to punish me for what I think is right, than I do you.

But you are mistaken. The moral relativist does not believe that right is only what an individual thinks is right. That is subjectivism. The moral relativists believes that what is right is what the society at large believes is right. I thought that had been assumed throughout this conversation. It is strange that you should confuse moral subjectivism with moral relativism at this point.

I don't know whether you are talking about what the moral relativist means by "having a right" to do something, or what he means by its being right to do something. Those are, obviously different. There may be a right to do X, but it still may not be right to do X. But the moral relativist would think that, for instance, a person has the right to vote iff the society at large believes he has that right. And, the moral relativists would think that it is right for a person to eat people iff the society at large believes that it is right for a person to eat people.

then by your own definitions the only difference between subjectivism and moral relativism is the scale. Every argument I've made would still be just as valid by replacing individuals with 'a society'(whatever that is supposed to entail). For a moral relativist there is no such thing as "being right to do something" because right and wrong do not exist in the absolute sense. Right and wrong are do not exist beyond what a person(excuse me a society) believes is the case.

Why should anyone subscribe to the notion that killing babies is right if and only if a group of people have amassed and call themselves a society say that it's right?

And why should the rest of the world be ham-stringed by the fact that their view that killing babies is right is equally as valid as our view that killing babies is wrong? Given moral relativism, everyone else could voice their opinion that killing babies is wrong but without being hypocritical could not actually do anything about it beyond that.

The moral relativist says that what is right depends on what society believes. The moral subjectivist says that what is right depend only on what he himself believes. If you want to say that is a difference of scale, fine. But it is not merely a difference of scale.

For a moral relativist there is no such thing as "being right to do something" because right and wrong do not exist in the absolute sense.

That just assumes that right and wrong can exist only absolutely (whatever that means). Do you want to justify that assumption, or do you think I should just take your word for it.

Why should anyone subscribe to the notion that killing babies is right if and only if a group of people have amassed and call themselves a society say that it's right?

That is a good question. But I suppose the MR's answer is that there is no other correct standard for right or wrong.

And why should the rest of the world be ham-stringed by the fact that their view that killing babies is right is equally as valid as our view that killing babies is wrong? Given moral relativism, everyone else could voice their opinion that killing

Like the former question, I suppose that this is a rhetorical question. And your answer is that it should not be.

indeed, because there is sense in thinking that slavery was wrong even when slavery was legal. There is sense in thinking that we as humans have made moral progress since the stone age.

There is sense in thinking that societies should be held accountable for their actions by the rest of the world. There is sense in thinking that humans have intrinsic worth.

The reason these things make sense is because we intuitively understand that some things are truly wrong while others are truly right. Certain rules and laws are set in place to protect what is truly right and to prevent or deter what is truly wrong.

If tomorrow America voted to re-instate slavery, it would still be wrong. Whereas the relativist would probably go out and buy a slave since society deemed it was right.

Legality and morality are very different matters. There is no reason to think this (Whereas the relativist would probably go out and buy a slave since society deemed it was right.) is true. As I said before, moral relativism does not imply that each and every person in the society holds that what is believed moral in that society is moral. It is somewhat difficult to avoid strawmen arguments when discussing this subject. But we ought to make every effort to do so. And also, try to avoid question-begging.

i get the sense that you really do believe this and therefore you think i and others think what hitler did was right. Actually, its our understanding of moral relativism being so radically different to yours that creates the difference here. Not our views on hitler.

You are self-proclaimed committed to beleiving the following thesis:

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons." Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Therefore, you are committed to believing the mass genocide of 6 million Jews in the context of WWII Germany was Right since the culture believed that it was.

But you are mistaken. The moral relativist does not believe that right is only what an individual thinks is right. That is subjectivism. The moral relativists believes that what is right is what the society at large believes is right. I thought that had been assumed throughout this conversation. It is strange that you should confuse moral subjectivism with moral relativism at this point.

I don't know whether you are talking about what the moral relativist means by "having a right" to do something, or what he means by its being right to do something. Those are, obviously different. There may be a right to do X, but it still may not be right to do X. But the moral relativist would think that, for instance, a person has the right to vote iff the society at large believes he has that right. And, the moral relativists would think that it is right for a person to eat people iff the society at large believes that it is right for a person to eat people.

legality and morality are different I agree but at the same time laws are also a moral stance on issues where it applies. The fact that there is a laws against things like pedophilia, killing, slavery, etc, are clearly laws written on moral grounds.

I can only make so many arguments against relativism using relativism before I begin to make positive arguments for objectivism from that stance.

On the flip side, I've yet to see any arguments against objectivism whilst presupposing its existence.

That doesn't make sense because it ignores the fact that he's a member of a culture which itself considers it wrong. Why should he forsake his culture and agree with another?

Anyways, I don't think we should conflate moral subjectivism with moral relativism. Whether or not moral truths are relative or not doesn't matter much because they are still subjective. They are mind-dependent.

Therefore, he cannot be both a subjectivist and a Cultural Moral relativist at the same time. That is inconsistent.

but at the same time laws are also a moral stance on issues where it applies.

I don't have any firm idea what that means, but with that is mind I would say that is true sometimes and not other times. The law about driving on the right side of the road instead of the left side does not, I daresay, take a moral stance on whether it is the right thing to drive on the right or whether it is wrong to drive on the right.

I suppose that the strongest argument against moral absolutism is cultural relativism. That in different cultures, there are very different moral beliefs and that they are in conflict as among cultures, together with the premise that there is no rational way to reconcile these conflicts, or decide among them.

Well the SEP disagrees with you.

Moral Anti-Realism > Moral subjectivism versus moral relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Read the above and you'll see that subjective vs. objective and relative vs. absolute are separate issues.

Anyhow, I don't see how any of this is an objection to what I said.

"My culture is right, but I don't believe that it is."

OK suppose you didn't infer that. The fact remains that if you're going to attempt to make logical arguments, then you ought to avoid logical fallacies. If you're not going to make logical arguments simply say, you're right and I'm wrong and be done with it(quite a strange view anyway for a relativist). If I thought morality was objective wouldn't I be right? Or worse yet if I thought everyone was wrong about relativism wouldn't I be right?

You said you can't be a subjectivist and relativist at the same time. SEP disagrees with you and I think it's because you are using the terms differently than they are.

The key is to place a moral value on diversity. That includes other means of judgement than objective truth (which is often not available). It is not a complete rejection of all objectivity, since that would be extremist itself ..... quite apart from creating an emotional chaos. Besides, we are reasonable and emotional beings.