Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes I have, because if right and wrong could be established based on evidence or logic then it wouldn't be relative not would it?
No. Something can be relative and at the same time have at least some basis in evidence or logic.
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.
So, something can be rleative and simultaneously based on logic or evidence.
I have already show how it does before you gave up debating me on it.
Want another shot?
Come at me bro.
BTW; "Appeals to authority" are fallacies and not valid arguments. Apparently you didn't know that.
Feel free to repeat your argument.
My point, because I feel you have not addressed it, is that unless you have some historical evidence to support your claims, you only have a hypothesis and not a verifiable or verified claim.
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.
And this premise (that moral relativism relies solely on subjective claims and premises) can be easily disproved.
Look at the very first premise made by moral relativism: that different cultures and people follow different moral norms, and even the same group or individual can follow different moral norms at different times.
This is merely an objective description of what we actually observe throughout history and in our day to day lives. Are you going to tell me that this is actually subjective?