my theory

Originally Posted by Elixir

It doesn't affect my way of thinking, no.

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions without the influence of others/society.

Lies.

Anybody with half a brain can come to conclusions that they believe are their own *despite* the influence of others. While knowing fullwell that they cannot be entirely unaffected.

Originally Posted by Agrias

I can't argue with you anymore, on the basis that you are a fool.

What happened to it being easier to discuss the subject after knowing the poster's religious beliefs? Seems it gave you just the excuse you needed to dismiss them out of hand and avoid the subject. Heathen or no.

Most amazing jew boots

Moral Relativity does not preclude an objective moral 'truth', at least it doesn't always. It is a theory which runs on the basis that since we don't know what the objective moral truth is (hence objectivists haven't proved themselves correct either), that we can't really know which culture/belief system etc. is correct. Since it cannot be measured against a known truth, it's something that must remain inconclusive.

It's often boiled down into the terms you put forth, but those neglect to include the significant points about the possibility of one 'true' moral, just that it's unknown and therefore not assumed to be so. Also a popular way to attack the theory is to cite examples which have known truths (world is flat etc.) which is a flawed comparison from the start.

But yeah, beliefs do not equal knowledge. Knowledge is true (until a time when it is revealed to have been false). You can believe anything (See faith), but that does not in itself make it true, only allows you to convince yourself of it's validity. If you are in a group-think situation as the OP's theory presents, then their beliefs will allow them to convince themselves that they 'know' a thing. It doesn't go any further than that, they may be correct, they may be incorrect. Who's to say?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I was explaining Moral Relativity, not really addressing your theory directly.

You say that your theory applies only within one society, and does not reach further than that. What distinction do you use to make determine where a society begins and ends? You've got a range of groups within groups which may or may not agree with the larger picture.

ie: A household may share beliefs that are contrary to their neighbourhood, the neighbourhood may believe differently than the city, the city may believe differently than the region, the region may believe differently than the country, the country may believe differently than the continent, the continent may believe differently than the rest of the world.

So, where do you draw the line, and if it's not arbitrarily drawn, what's the reasoning behind defining a society as being X, but Y is too big, and Z is too small?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.