Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Morality is RELATIVE?

I'm lollin'.

DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO!

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR":

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so:

"If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false."

What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true.

1st, your shape relevatism is a bullshit red herring.

2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative.

3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You've never taken a logic class, have you? Let me explain:

The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.

The shape relevatism is only defective because it is a situation wherein we know the answer. Up until the time where the shape was known, either side of the argument could have been correct, because neither side was provable.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Did you even understand what I said? I said that the Pepsi vs. Coke debate was one saying "I like Coke more than Pepsi!" and the other saying "No, you don't." How can the other person know? He can't because they are dealing with irrevocably private feelings. According to Moral Relativism, ALL disagreements deal with irrevocably private feelings. However, there ARE disagreements that do NOT deal with irrevocably private feelings, but publically observed fact (such as 2+2=4. If somebody says 2+2=5, then that person is wrong because he is talking about a publically observed fact, and can be shown as such). Thus, Moral Relativism is false.

Except that arguments on moral issues are not debates about telling others what they do, and do not believe. It's telling others that you believe what you believe, and the other sides of the debate continuing to believe what they believe. Unlike the shape relevatism, these are generally issues that have not been 'proven' one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

I've already dealt with this in my response to your second point. According to Moral Relativism, there can be no such thing as a genuine disagreement since we are all talking about nothing but irrevocably private feelings. But again, there ARE genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, since reality contradicts "MR," "MR" is false.

This is not according to MR, this is according to Moore. And how is arguing over irrevocably private feelings not genuine anyhow?

But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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."

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

*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.

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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

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.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

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.

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?

How ya doing, buddy?