Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.

The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that.

I don't believe in much. I just like to debate. Keeps the mind in shape.

No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.

There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.

Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.

This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.

But don't all societies preceive their way to be "the right way?". Moore was not trying to debunk that.

Tribe x is any group of people. It can be a nation, the Boy Scouts, you, me, the entire world, etc.

You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?

You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Ethics are morals.

Congratulations on saying the single STUPIDEST thing in this thread so far.

Ahh, but the problem I see with relativism is that instead of trying to FIND out what's moral and what's not, they just throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, everything's moral."

Wouldn't that imply that there is a possibility that one or the other is morally wrong?

Perhaps. That's obviously not your skewed vision of what moral relativism is.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

What do you think they mean by "Absolute" and "Universal"? The only "absolute" philosophical thing I think that it could possibly refer to is the existence of a God. And "His" universal rules. Which is why I used the Catholic Church and Galileo as an example.

Yes I understand the point you're trying to make. The problem is, you don't seem to understand what I said. This is not a yes/no proposition. You're trying to boil it down into a simplistic AGREE/DISAGREE choice. My problem with your Shape Relativity is that lack of complexity dealing with complex questions. Only the most mundane of questions can be boiled down to agree or disagree. Moral relativity, (while not perfect) is certainly more complex then your Shapist theories since it encompasses tradition, custom, history, and personal choice.

The flaws I see of your shape theory is who is deciding what the group believes, and why are they choosing to believe that. How did they come to that conclusion? Name off all the examples you want, but until you can answer that then your theory is incomplete.

Again I ask, doesn't every society think their way is the right way?

Wrong. In the sense of what Moore was talking about. Ethics are the standards that govern groups. Morals are your personal perception of right and wrong. Do they sometimes cross and agree with each other? Yes. All the time? No.

But these are still not examples of moral issues. At best they are examples of long understood 'scientific' issues. These are not questions of whether a thing is ethical but whether a thing is true or false.

That doesn't have to be the case at all. One can explore and test their moral stance, and re-evaluate it based on what they learn of another views on the same subject. You needn't close your mind to the other side in order to accept that you haven't the moral authority to determine what is right for everybody. All it really boils down to is admiting that although one does not believe so, it is possible that one's stance is not entirely right. To believe that as much as we may not like or agree with another way of doing things, it may not be entirely without merit.

Of course it's possible that one is right, and the other wrong. But unlike some, I don't want to assume that my way is the right way because I believe it to be. If you keep a relatively open mind you might learn something from those you might otherwise dismiss as morally bankrupt. What's so bad about *trying* to take a relatively objective stance and trying to understand another's point of view?

That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance.

*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.

Which again, implies that a) one may not be right, and b) there is an objective standard for morality.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that at that point you're more or less admitting that yes, there is an objective standard for morality, which moral relativism claims cannot be the case.

And this is the crux of why relativism is so attractive. With objectivism, you have to deal with individual cases, carefully weigh benefits/harm (assuming you're approaching from a utilitarian point of view), and make difficult moral judgements that not everybody will like, and indeed, it's not even guaranteed that anybody will like them, not even yourself. Relativism, on the other hand, solves the problem by refusing to acknowledge both an objective standard of morality, and even refuses to acknowledge that disagreements occur, period.

I'll respond to you later, Watts. I just got up and have to get ready for work in like... 5 minutes, and I don't have enough time.

Assuming that moral and ethical questions fall into logical forms, you are right. And I'll even agree on that. But they continue to be issues that have a known correct answer. And that is what sets them fundamentally appart from those questions which do not have a known correct answer.


I never said otherwise. And I've never heard someone who believes in moral relativity argue that either. The objective moral standard, which is not known is why people try to understand other sides of a moral issue. It's only your narrow view of what moral relativism is, which supports your argument. It's not as simple a view, or a singular a notion as you purport it to be. The wikipedia entry actually does a reasonable job of laying out some basics.

Again, this is only by a very narrow view of what moral relativism claims.

It doesn't (always) refuse to acknowledge an objective standard of morality, and nowhere, ever, have I read of a moral relativist claim that disagreements do not occur (It's a construct built to attack MR). What is generally accepted by moral relativists is that the supposed objective standard of morality cannot be proven (yet), and so it's wrong to assume that one's own morals *have* to be the right ones. Thus, what makes ojectivism so attractive is that one gets to be right all the time. And one knows that no matters people's difference of opinions, you can rest assured that you alone are the one who has it all figured out (Or at least has the capacity since you are the one who *knows* the objective standard of morality).

MR doesn't argue that all sides are right. Only that there is no objective way to determine which one is right. And this is why I asked a few posts back, what the objective moral standard was. Since you don't know it, then how can you know that the 'other side' is wrong?