This is exactly my view. Do you disagree with this premise? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Have you not understood anything I have said? Of course I disagree.

Again if no one on Earth ever condemned genocide would it be the right thing to do? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Since I am one of those people on Earth my views would likely be the same as everyone else.

Why would you not find it persuasive? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

My reasons are based on empathy and what I value.

Historical facts are not actual facts, they are our most probable guess based on evidence. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Based on this analogy, where are no moral facts, only probable guesses.

My point is that a lack of knowledge does not constitute a lack of fact. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

And my point is that a fact that no one knows cannot be appealed to as a fact.

Also you all seem to be ignoring the absolutes that we agree on. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

What we do not agree on is that they are absolutes.

We do this because certain, basic, moral principles are understood universally, such as human life should be protected, or one should never cause another undue pain. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

No matter how many times you repeat the same thing it does not thereby become true. These things are evidently not universally understood given the fact that human life is not always protected and often taken.

You are arguing that ending suffering should be more valuable that preserving life, are you not? If this is the case where did your idea of this come from? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

You miss the point. I am not arguing that one is more valuable than the other. Moral principles come into conflict. Neither choice is good. Both choices conflict with a moral principle. Some will hold that life is more important but others believe that to allow suffering is intolerable.

But it seems that morality is the only discipline in which we take disagreements to mean there is no answer. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

In any discipline where there is disagreement an absolute answer has not been determined. In some cases an answer will be found but until or unless it is found the proposed answers are relative not absolute.

Morality is studied, even by self proclaimed relativists, why would we do such a thing if there was no answer? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

We must make choices. Moral deliberation is about making choices in the absence of clear answers.

Also consider this if morality was invented by humanity how did we come to set a moral standard that is impossible for humans to reach? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

What moral standard is that? This is not something a moral relativist would do.

Moral objectivists: Where are moral values outside of the mind?

My reasons are based on empathy and what I value. — Fooloso4

So would a person without empathy and different values be perfectly justified in committing genocide?

In any discipline where there is disagreement an absolute answer has not been determined. In some cases an answer will be found but until or unless it is found the proposed answers are relative not absolute. — Fooloso4

The proposed answers are not relative they are either right or wrong. We do not know the origin of the universe with certainty but we do believe that the big bang is more probable than the idea that a turtle puked it out. We can only make this distinction because there absolutely is an origin to the universe. The same is true of morality. We may not know with absolute certainty what is right or wrong in some circumstances. We are then left to our best guesses as to what the correct answer is. These guesses are not relative but either right or wrong. Each of these guesses have different moral values. They can only have these values if there is a definite answer. All that matters is that we know this absolute answer exists. From that standpoint we can rank moral ideas, based on how close we believe it is to the truth. But the truth has to be there, in order for our beliefs about it to have any value at all. Without the separate preexisting truth then the big bang and turtle vomit are equally plausible origins of the universe.

Science does not operate based on absolute certainty. History does not operate based on absolute certainly. Philosophy does not operate based on absolute certainty. — Fooloso4

Philosophy actually does often deal in certainty, see absolute truths (but that's not really important right now I just thought you'd find it interesting). Science and history do not operate based on absolute certainty but both disciplines operate based on the idea that there is an absolute truth. I am not arguing for absolute moral certainty, I am arguing that the absolute moral truth exists. Because it exists we should strive to get as close to it as we possibly can.

What moral standard is that? This is not something a moral relativist would do. — Fooloso4

All moral imperatives use should or should not. The should implies that we do not currently do the things being asked of us. My question is that if we invented morality why would we not use it to justify the actions we are currently doing instead of placing a goal that we will fall short of? You are right that a moral relativist would not do this, but a relativist like that would just say that it doesn't matter how we act at all. A slave owner and Harriet Tubman are equally morally valuable.

So would a person without empathy and different values be perfectly justified in committing genocide? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

By whose standards? Those who participated in the genocide of Native Americans and the Holocaust thought they were justified. They regarded those they slaughtered as less than human and a threat to their own existence and well being.

The proposed answers are not relative they are either right or wrong. We do not know the origin of the universe with certainty but we do believe that the big bang is more probable than the idea that a turtle puked it out. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

If you are to treat your claims about morality as equivalent to claims about The Big Bang then you must provide empirical evident and not just poorly defended arguments. Scientific claims are provisional, subject to change. If you are to treat your claims about morality as equivalent to scientific claims then you must treat them as provisional and subject to change.

We can only make this distinction because there absolutely is an origin to the universe. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Even a superficial reading of the scientific literature will show that this is not true. There are many cosmologists who think that there is no origin, that there has always been something.

We may not know with absolute certainty what is right or wrong in some circumstances. We are then left to our best guesses as to what the correct answer is. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

With that you have conceded the argument. If we are left with our best guesses then we are left with relativism.

These guesses are not relative but either right or wrong. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

But if we do not know which of these guesses are right and which are wrong then none can be held as absolutes. Welcome to moral relativism. You will find that it is not as scary and dangerous as you imagine.

All that matters is that we know this absolute answer exists. From that standpoint we can rank moral ideas, based on how close we believe it is to the truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

If we only know that an absolute answer exists but do not know what that answer is, then how can be know that the answer we guess is right is closer to or further from the truth?

Philosophy actually does often deal in certainty, see absolute truths (but that's not really important right now I just thought you'd find it interesting). — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Philosophy is not monolithic. There may still be some who cling to the dream of certainty, but many who reject it or limit its range.

Science and history do not operate based on absolute certainty but both disciplines operate based on the idea that there is an absolute truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Asserting it to be so does not make it so. You seem to be woefully unaware of the literature in these fields. But again, unless you are consistent in your claims of equivalency this does not address the issue at hand.

I am not arguing for absolute moral certainty — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Without absolute moral certainty there is only relativism.

I am arguing that the absolute moral truth exists. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Are you certain?

My question is that if we invented morality why would we not use it to justify the actions we are currently doing instead of placing a goal that we will fall short of? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

There is no moral justification without morals. Some moral claim or principle is what we use to justify or condemn an action. We do not invent morals is order to fall short but to guide our actions.

a relativist like that would just say that it doesn't matter how we act at all. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

"A relativist like that" is not a relativist like me. I have made it clear that it does matter how we act. After all that I have said, if all that you have to resort to is this mischaracterization of my position then I will take this as an admission of your failure to do what you set out to do. Less charitably, but perhaps more accurately, I will take it as evidence that you have failed to understand what moral relativism is in its more developed, more defensible form.

You are correct but unless oppression is morally wrong, why does this matter? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

It matters because you have argued many times in this thread about how absolutism has pragmatic advantages such as protecting us against oppression and tyranny.

Do you believe that your moral views and the views of the fascist to have equal moral validity? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Potentially, yes. If their reasons for their views were valid.

If this is the only determining factor then what right do you have to condemn the actions of Mussolini? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

You're talking about a fundamental human characteristic as being a right? Morality is enforced, it is not some invisible truth that compels people to act in a certain way. Mussolini's actions deeply go against my beliefs about how a country should be governed and how people should treat each other.

You show a moral relativist pictures of Mussolini's oppression, you tell them about how Mussolini's police state, with oppression and misinformation, how he restricted peoples' rights and freedoms. The moral relativist is visibly upset, says they're shocked at how someone could get away with all of these things they deem terrible. You say "I don't see why it matters that you're upset, Mussolini did nothing wrong without moral absolutes". It's just so silly, you're seeing morality function as normal, a person is applying their moral convictions as to be expected but you're somehow unsatisfied. They didn't get upset about Mussolini breaking some inaccessible list of no-no's, they're only upset because they empathise with the victims of his brutality, what a disaster.

Hi. I think your definition could use a little tuning.

Relativism: Any x subject can, does, or must, have y status relative to z system of y2 qualities.

'Qualities' can be a set of policies, practices, precedents, predicates, principles, procedures, processes, properties, or propositions. There's no reason in particular why I chose p-words other than to show that it doesn't really matter what the base units are called as long as they function as part of a sufficiently cogent argument. Here that value happens to be 'morals'.

The 'system' can be a simple as a prior psychological bias. That opens the door to talk of optical illusions, false memories and hypnotherapy -- all of which are real, effective, and classically erroneous. To deny the existence of systems would potentially imply some kind of terminal noncognitivism. Kant believe it?

Whatever morality a person subscribes to, from the global perspective, is ultimately a matter of the taste of one person. And somehow relativism, with its overtures of tolerance and defeasibility, is the narcissist?