........And theft is about how one defines property. There's generally less dispute there, because laws define it, not individuals. But still, look at the intellectual property dispute.JL -
If we are attempting to describe a real moral system, and moral relativism is not a system of morality, then how can it be an accurate description of reality?
And what if I say you're wrong?
How can moral relativism promote tolerance if tolerance is not an objective standard of morality?
But this sets up an objective standard. For the moral relativist, not only does "everything go," but everything must go.
where is the natural selection proccess that roots out bad morality? How is it rooted out? If a culture comes up with a less-than-perfect morality, how does it evolve, exactly? Sure, they change, but it is not neccessarily an "evolution".
and the 'finest' example of 'moral relativism' is 'terrorism'
Absolutism is the intellectual foundation for terrorism, crusades, inquisitions, ideologically driven police states, take your choice.
Joe, if I called what I mean by "superficial semantics" by a different name, it would be the same thing to me.
You might not understand what I was talking about, but that just shows how (words) the superficial can change dramatically while (meaning) the underlying point does not.
Reality does not include a system of morality. All attempts to describe a real moral system are departures from reality.
Quote:And what if I say you're wrong?
You can convince me by presenting a basis for morality that is not arbitrary.
I see increased levels of tolerance as a possible, even likely, result, but I will concede this is not inevitable. Moral relativity in my estimation is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and its utilitarian value (if any) is a separate issue from whether or not it is true.
You have excerpted the first sentence of my argument; what followed was my perhaps poor attempt to justify that conclusion. No one is raised in a vacuum (or perhaps almost no one); we have moral codes ingrained. All moral relativists are saying is that these codes are culturally based, rather than derived logically or handed down by deities. It seems to me it is at least as plausible to say everything must stay.
In essence, morals are set up to regulate people's behavior so there would be some advantage either to the person who follows this moral or to the group the follower belongs to.
I suppose moral relativism didn't rise until last century...
Joe, I could use other words for you, or draw you a picture, or speak to you about it in another language, or even we could invent our own jibberish language and I could talk about it in that. It doesn't matter what words you use - the meaning is the same. The words are only to communicate the meaning to others - but once you understand it the words are again superficial.
.......No one is raised in a vacuum (or perhaps almost no one); we have moral codes ingrained. All moral relativists are saying is that these codes are culturally based, rather than derived logically or handed down by deities. It seems to me it is at least as plausible to say everything must stay.