Moral Relativism ?? Good, Bad, or ...... ?

Upon what evidence do you base this assertion?

Since you already deny the existence of systems of morality, I would imagine that you have already decided that any basis is arbitrary.

I think you're far too optimistic. As long as tolerance is not accepted as an objective moral standard, people are free to practice intolerance with moral impunity.

If morality is culturally based, then there is an obligation on the part of the culture's members to adhere to that morality. That's not descriptive, it's prescriptive (at least for members of that society). And that, in turn, is an objective standard of morality.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I took your meaning to be that a "real" moral system can be found in reality, or else it isn't "real". If this is the case, it seems to me that the claim I am making, that moral systems are not "real", in the sense that they are not rooted in absolute principles that are independent of culture, is self-evident. If, on the other hand, you meant that it is not a real system of morality because it is not a system of morality, then I guess I would have to agree. But it still strikes me as an accurate description of reality, at least more accurate than any other system of morality.

I haven't denied the existence of systems of morality. There are many. But I do believe the basis of all of them is arbitrary. If this is not the case, a single example would work wonders.

That may very well be true. On the other hand, if tolerance is an objective moral standard, doesn't it -tolerance- contradict nearly every other objective moral standard? If we know what constitutes "correct" behavior, why be tolerant?

Members of a given society have an inclination to adhere to the morality of their culture, but, obviously, some (criminals) will defy it regardless of their perception of its mutability, even if they think the rules were handed down by God, with the numbers growing in times of social change. "Objective" standards are overthrown with regularity. Perception of objectivity does not equate with objectivity; what moral relativity is describing here is not what people believe, but what is actually the case.

You guys are going too deep into this subject. It's really very simple. Treat all living things with respect and dignity. All else falls into place.

I would contend that systems of morality are "real" to the same extent that customs are real, traditions are real, rules of etiquette are real, and rules of thumb are real. If you are insisting upon some sort of physical existence, then, of course, none of these is "real."

You had said previously: "...I find no compelling arguments for the rightness or wrongness of any particular principle; a precept is right or wrong merely because we say so. (Or because God says so.)" To which I replied: "What if I say you're wrong." In response, you asked me to identify one system of morality that wasn't arbitrary. Very well: your system.

After all, you've already admitted to an objective standard of right and wrong (or, more accurately, correctness and incorrectness): otherwise, you wouldn't have asked for proof that you were wrong. And if one can be objectively correct regarding a fact, presumably one can be objectively correct regarding morality. If, however, that's not the case, then you need to explain how one can be objectively correct about some things but not objectively correct regarding morality.

If "toleration" is a higher-order good than something else, then toleration is morally preferred. For instance, if I have a duty to denounce lies, but I have a higher-order duty to tolerate liars in certain circumstances, then there I am being morally consistent by not denouncing a lie in that circumstance.

But that's not philosophy. What you're describing is, at best, sociology.

The moral relativist doesn't merely say "this is what is done" but rather states "this is what should be done." Moral relativism is, at its core, prescriptive, not descriptive.

I agree there are objective standards in many disciplines. I don't happen to think morality is one of them. If you can establish an objective standard for a moral principle, then I am wrong. But I don't think you can do it.

And I don't believe it is incumbent upon me to establish that moral laws should have the same footing as physical laws when its clear to me they don't.

This sounds like situational ethics to me, but also something of a corruption of the concept of tolerance. How would you state your principle of tolerance so that an ordinary citizen would know when to apply it, and when not to?

I have no clue what should be done; and, in spite of centuries of philosophical systems that claim otherwise, neither does anyone else, at least in terms of establishing an objective system.

---as my schedule will preclude spending much time here for the next two or three weeks, I cede the final reply to you, joe, unless someone else wishes to take up the cause in my stead. I've enjoyed our exchanges. Although I'm sure no opinions have been changed, no one have been hurt by the process either.

Moral laws do not exist in a platonic sphere of absolute objective existence; they exist by virtue of human construction and utilization. If they were not humanly constructed, they would not exist, and if humans ceased to orient their action in terms of them, they would disappear from the human scene. It is all practical and dynamic, a living process full of ambiguities and movement. A "puristic" philosophical approach that treats them as absolute entities suffers from rigour mortis.

"]Joe,

To the extent that someone holds a belief that is completely unrelated to conduct (e.g. one's belief in the inherent goodness of benevolent spirits) I would contend that such a belief is not a moral belief.

Greyfan, that's all very well - but 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"..

The point is that property is NOT defined, at least not universally.