- 21 Dec 2018 15:33
#14974446
Please provide an example. Thanks.
Your are equivocating on the term "relative". Relative in that usage is referring to a proximate comparison, not mutually exclusive claims being equally valid and invalid at the same time.
You have just discredited yourself in a way that I could never have predicted. LOL
That is not how philosophy works, philosophy takes claims based on definitions and analyzes them through the laws of logic.
The claim that moral relativism can make critiques of other moral systems on the basis of logic and evidence is assessed by this same criterion and it does not matter what has happened or what people have claimed historically, not one bit.
To say otherwise is a fallacy.
People do act inconsistently, which is why the matter is debated, for people can claim that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, but then act like that views itself isn't a matter of preference but of objective fact; however, that is itself showing that the moral belief in moral relativism is not morally relative (contradiction).
Other problems with it could be produced, but ultimately the point is that just because people claim an argument for moral relativism does not mean that moral relativism is a valid or consistent theory.
There are people that deny logic as well, but they are using logic in making that very claim and are therefore self-contradictory, this is the same with moral relativism.
That is not moral relativism though; that is not even a moral claim at all, that is an observation of divergent patterns in human behavior that no one denies. Hell, I would even make that claim in agreement with you, does that make me a moral relativist?
Pants, a moral claim is always about obligation, the "ought," thus moral relativism claims that there is no "ought" upon anyone in any objective manner whatsoever; rather, moral relativism teaches that people only ought to do what they themselves believe they ought to do and no other person's moral system is any more right or wrong than anyone elses.
Thus, If person X believes in molesting children and Person A believes in protecting children from molestation, under moral relativism; both claims are equally valid and invalid at the same time. They are relative and subjective; neither person X or A is right or wrong.
That is moral relativism.
What you are talking about something that is not even a moral or ethical statement at all, just an observation of historical patterns.
Now, you can choose to infer from that observation of different cultures in different times that different cultures ought to behave as they wish and that their cultural morality is no better or worse than that of other cultures; that still would not be moral relativism, but moral particularism (as @Sivad has pointed out).
However, if you "attempted" to infer from that same observation the system of moral relativism, what would that claim even look like? That because other cultures in different times had different norms that individuals "ought" to have their own preferred morality of their own choosing? Well that would be a contradiction because you are claiming that morality is relative but that everyone "ought" to act/believe that relative morality which is not a morally relative claim in itself due to its scope.
Likewise, if you infer ANY ethical or moral statement from that observation, it would ALWAYS be a fallacy anyway; the is-ought fallacy (also called the naturalistic fallacy), for you cannot logically infer from historic observation of what people did (the is), what people should do or believe (the ought).
If you are merely stating what people do and are making no "ought" claims at all, then you are not talking about morality in any sense whatsoever; only what people do or have done.
That is sociology, not morality or ethics.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Something can be relative and at the same time have at least some basis in evidence or logic.
Please provide an example. Thanks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The second floor is higher than the first floor. This is a description of their positions relative to one another. The numbering system and the faxt that the floors are vertically stacked is based on structural physics, and the logic of how humans use builidings.
Your are equivocating on the term "relative". Relative in that usage is referring to a proximate comparison, not mutually exclusive claims being equally valid and invalid at the same time.
You have just discredited yourself in a way that I could never have predicted. LOL
Pants-of-dog wrote:s that unless you have some historical evidence to support your claims, you only have a hypothesis and not a verifiable or verified claim.
That is not how philosophy works, philosophy takes claims based on definitions and analyzes them through the laws of logic.
The claim that moral relativism can make critiques of other moral systems on the basis of logic and evidence is assessed by this same criterion and it does not matter what has happened or what people have claimed historically, not one bit.
To say otherwise is a fallacy.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This position of yours would require that all the arguments for moral relativism are necessarily subjective and not based on rational thought. If this were the case, moral relativism would not even be a philosophical position that could be debated. But it is.
People do act inconsistently, which is why the matter is debated, for people can claim that morality is simply a matter of personal preference, but then act like that views itself isn't a matter of preference but of objective fact; however, that is itself showing that the moral belief in moral relativism is not morally relative (contradiction).
Other problems with it could be produced, but ultimately the point is that just because people claim an argument for moral relativism does not mean that moral relativism is a valid or consistent theory.
There are people that deny logic as well, but they are using logic in making that very claim and are therefore self-contradictory, this is the same with moral relativism.
Pants-of-dog wrote: that different cultures and people follow different moral norms, and even the same group or individual can follow different moral norms at different times.
That is not moral relativism though; that is not even a moral claim at all, that is an observation of divergent patterns in human behavior that no one denies. Hell, I would even make that claim in agreement with you, does that make me a moral relativist?
Pants, a moral claim is always about obligation, the "ought," thus moral relativism claims that there is no "ought" upon anyone in any objective manner whatsoever; rather, moral relativism teaches that people only ought to do what they themselves believe they ought to do and no other person's moral system is any more right or wrong than anyone elses.
Thus, If person X believes in molesting children and Person A believes in protecting children from molestation, under moral relativism; both claims are equally valid and invalid at the same time. They are relative and subjective; neither person X or A is right or wrong.
That is moral relativism.
What you are talking about something that is not even a moral or ethical statement at all, just an observation of historical patterns.
Now, you can choose to infer from that observation of different cultures in different times that different cultures ought to behave as they wish and that their cultural morality is no better or worse than that of other cultures; that still would not be moral relativism, but moral particularism (as @Sivad has pointed out).
However, if you "attempted" to infer from that same observation the system of moral relativism, what would that claim even look like? That because other cultures in different times had different norms that individuals "ought" to have their own preferred morality of their own choosing? Well that would be a contradiction because you are claiming that morality is relative but that everyone "ought" to act/believe that relative morality which is not a morally relative claim in itself due to its scope.
Likewise, if you infer ANY ethical or moral statement from that observation, it would ALWAYS be a fallacy anyway; the is-ought fallacy (also called the naturalistic fallacy), for you cannot logically infer from historic observation of what people did (the is), what people should do or believe (the ought).
If you are merely stating what people do and are making no "ought" claims at all, then you are not talking about morality in any sense whatsoever; only what people do or have done.
That is sociology, not morality or ethics.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry