Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Actually, that's exactly what the moral relativist says. While killing may not align with their own personal moral code, the relativist recognizes that it does in other parts of the world, or other parts of their own society, and there are no universal truths against which these beliefs can be judged to determine which is objectively correct.
I highly doubt that a moral relativist can be against killing on the one hand but suddenly be for it if done by others just because they are from a different culture. That's a logical contradiction. And even if he says "Well, under such and such circumstances it IS alright to kill", he is still morally justifying the conditional rightness of killing for the rest of the human race. He's saying given these circumstances it right to kill for all humans. At no point does he say, "Well, for me killing is wrong, but for other people it's ok because afterall there's no objective morality and they have a right to kill when I don't." Ofcourse I don't know any moral relativists so I may be wrong. But like I'm saying, you don't make a moral judgement without universalizing that judgement for the human race. Otherwise what's the point of morality at all? You might as well just be choosing to act for your own reason with no moral extrapolation at all.
How do you mean "extrapolate universally?" If you mean a moral principle I believe in that I don't think everyone should adhere to, I'd reckon there are plenty, since so many of them are situational. I wouldn't steal food, for example, but then I'm not starving. I wouldn't presume to tell someone who has five mouths to feed that they should adhere to my principles
But then you're just applying a moral rule to other humans in THAT case aren't you? IOW, you're saying IF you are starving and have 5 mouths to feed, then it's morally justified for ANY human to steal. That's a universal rule for you. So nothing is relativized to just you at all. You are still making judgments about what all humans should do. The rules. The exceptions. Everything morally justified applies equally well to all other humans. How can it not?
It isn't a contradiction, because the central conceit of relativism is that there is no objective moral value to any action. Therefore, any moral judgment is based on subjective valuation. It's like saying something is "too hot." While this is subjectively true for you, it might not be true for someone else. This is how something exists as true and false at once. Same goes for morality; it's subjective, and therefore its status as good or bad is wholly dependant on the individual.
But if there is no objective moral value to any action, then how do you morally justify your own actions. A moral principle that is entirely subjective would be no more moral than a passing whim. Moral justification ASSUMES applicability of your principle beyond just yourself to all other men as well. It assumes a shared obligation to a commonly binding rule or principle and so automatically posits the objectivity of moral value. Otherwise, and once again, why morally justify it? Why not just say that's what you chose to do and be done with it.
Who says they don't? I believe that all women should be treated as equals to men, and all races as equal to each other.I believe this should apply across the board. I don't have to believe in some universal principle to hold that belief, nor do I have to accept the mistreatment of women and minorities simply because it's part of another culture's tradition.
If they believe all men should behave a certain way towards women, according to principle of human equality and respect, then yes they are believing in a universally binding principle or ideal. They're saying proper conduct towards women is NOT relative to one's situation or culture, but applies to all humans everywhere at anytime. If that isn't absolutism I don't know what it is.
So you're saying since relativism admits the subjectivity of moral principles, that they are therefore non-objective and therefore no longer moral principles? No, and I haven't the foggiest how you arrived at such a dubious non-sequitur.
Yes..I guess I am. "Objective" taken in the sense of principles binding to more that just yourself and applying to all other human faced with the same situation. As for how objective principles exist, I don't know. I think laws of physics exist in some sense beyond the physical world. Mathematical formulae and numbers too. So maybe moral principles, like Plato's ideal of the Good, exists in some timeless eternal state separate from physical reality. Note this doesn't require the existence of a God to define them. They exist in their own right, like the rules of logic and reason for example.
I'm saying that relativism is the recognition that morality is subjective rather than objective, and as such there are no universal moral truths. I'm not saying that you can't believe in what you believe in, or try to argue the merits of your beliefs. Indeed, I'm not saying that moral values don't have merit, I'm saying that those merits are subjective, based on your own values and not some universal code against which they can be judged.
I see that. I'M saying moral judgement can't help but posit itself as universally binding. I question the whole premise of relativism that says one can believe in one's own morals and values and also believe they are just the subjective products of raising and culture. You just can't do that. Because saying your morals or values are the arbitrary byproducts of culture and raising instantly invalidates them as moral values. They become things you have become programmed to think and so lack any justification as being morally applicable principles. A moral principle afterall has to be freely chosen.
For all your talk of objective morality, you've yet to offer even one universal principe. Care to try, since it's the root of your beliefs?
You already gave one--the treatment of women as equals with men.
Last edited: