You all seem to be arguing the same point. Ironically I am in agreement with you guys on every point except the source of morality. Since your replies are all so closely related I will try to answer all your arguments here. First of all I want to say that all of you assume that a belief in moral absolutes requires an inflexibility in moral beliefs. This is not the case I admit that many people have used moral absolutes in order to oppress but the same can be said of moral relativism.
If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable. -Benito Mussolini
The thesis that morality is the invention of humanity is not tantamount to the preposterous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." At least you haven't made that argument, you merely insinuated it. — SophistiCat
It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. I also believe that although all of you are moral relativists by name, you are moral absolutists in practice. Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression and all of us believe, myself included, that oppression is bad. In fact each of us believes that oppression is always a bad thing. It is wrong regardless of the beliefs of the ruling class, regardless of the beliefs of the major religions, regardless of the beliefs of the individuals in the society. At all points throughout history, on all corners of the globe, and at any point in the future, oppression should be avoided. Why? Not because our current culture values lack of oppression, but because oppression is wrong as a matter of fact. If you still disagree with me answer this question. Is oppression ever right or commendable? if your answer to this question is no then I would assume that you believe it's antithesis, oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong.
But if no one believes in this purely hypothetical "moral relativism," then (I keep coming back to this question) what is the point of railing against it? It seems that the real objective is a bait-and-switch. — SophistiCat
A few of you have brought this point up, saying that I have not really offered a proof that moral relativism is wrong. You're right, I haven't. This is definitely something that I need to edit and rewrite in my paper. Thanks for the constructive criticism. My argument is, though, that if moral relativism is an invention of humanity, why does it seem so inhuman? And before you say that moral relativism is not the abandonment of morality but rather the recognition that one person or society cannot consider themselves correct about morality, keep in mind that I agree with the latter half of that sentence.
Think of it this way. Scientists all believe in scientific facts. However there are many disagreements on what those facts are. To give a softball example, a scientist believes that the earth is round, there are people, however, that claim the earth is flat. The scientist can use facts to prove that the earth is round because scientific truth exists. If scientific truth was merely an invention of humanity and it could vary from culture to culture, how could one argue that the flat earther is wrong? In the same way we cannot argue moral truth, such as: oppression is wrong, if there was no moral facts.
People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc). — Tom Storm
The fact that people in our current society or in past societies have disagreed on what is right and wrong does not matter in the slightest toward disproving moral absolutism.
I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. Take gay marriage for example, it seems to me from your other arguments that you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong. If this is the case, then do you believe that there ever was or ever will be a time where restricting gay marriage is correct? If not it is because you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong always, no matter what, regardless of the views of the society or the time period or location on the globe. If all of my assumptions about your beliefs are true, correct me if they are not, then do you see how this is a moral absolute?
If someone disagreed with your view how would you argue with them? You would likely say (sorry for assuming again) something to the nature of, it makes them happy and it doesn't hurt anyone so there is no reason to restrict it. Inherent in this argument is the belief that denying someone the right to marry merely because their religion forbids it, is absolutely morally wrong, always, no matter what. How ever you could not make that claim if their were no moral facts.
People at some times seem to have gotten the impression that Xing in circumstances S was wrong, whereas people at other times seem to have gotten the impression Xing in circumstances S was right. — Bartricks
My question would be why was Xing wrong at some point but not at others? To make it easier to understand let's use a tangible example, killing. If I were to kill you for no reason I would be in the wrong. However if I discovered that you were going to murder thirty people and the only way to stop you was to kill you, then one could argue that not killing you was wrong. You might be saying that this is because morality is relative, that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. Note also that while I would claim that killing a man to stop him from killing several is the right thing to do pacifists may say that it is still morally wrong. Despite our disagreement we are both appealing to the absolute of, human life should be valued and protected. The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist.
Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. — Judaka
So has moral relativism, see the Mussolini quote above. Also remember that your belief that tyranny always has been and always will be wrong, is itself an absolute moral statement.
I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism.
My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same. — Tom Storm
We may never discover the origin of life, but that doesn't mean that we should stop studying it. However if we were to say there is no origin of life then why study it? Why make arguments for what is most likely true?
You could make the argument that we never will know the answer to these moral truths and thus we shouldn't ever believe we are absolutely morally right, I would disagree. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. Now logic is also the hardest form of truth to prove and as a result we should be open to all criticisms of our logic. But I'd like to point out that when you disagree with my logic you are disagreeing with the logical conclusion I have come to because you do not believe it to be the truth, not because you don't believe truth to be a thing.
Morality is the only discipline in which disagreements about the facts are attributed to their nonexistence. Most of science is built on theory and many of these theories are impossible to prove, evolution for example. However we take these to be true because they are the most logically probable. Now before you point out that natural sciences uses physical evidence where morality cannot, remember that mathematics is a purely logical discipline. And while we can see obviously the truth of 1+1=2, there are disagreements among mathematicians in higher math. Yet no one is claiming there is no mathematical truth. In fact I would argue that seeing that mathematics is fact and morality is fact can be done in the same way.
There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror — Judaka
The "obviousness" referred to in this statement is much like the obviousness of 1+1=2. Because ideas like terrorism is wrong are obviously true we can see that truth does exist morally speaking. Just as we see that mathematical truth does exist through the obvious equations.
The fact that all of us agree that societies should behave in certain ways regardless of the time, place, and attitude of said society makes moral absolutism the most logical choice. Thus it should be accepted as truth.