[One Degree]

Can you name a philosopher who is a moral relativist?

This article dates them back to Herodotus.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[Pants-of-dog]

So, On Degree cannot.

Anyone else?

[One Degree]

So, On Degree cannot.

Anyone else?

The article mentions several. You would only need to read the first couple of paragraphs.
If you reject that, then I offer myself. I claim to be both a philosopher and a moral relativist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Judging by the numbers of Christian articles and tracts about moral relativism, Christianity seems awfully threatened by moral relativism.

[One Degree]

Judging by the numbers of Christian articles and tracts about moral relativism, Christianity seems awfully threatened by moral relativism.

This sounds like typical whining from the left that all their victims should never fight back. Back to the topic, there is no reason for a moral relativist to question others beliefs. This is why I have no problem with Christians, Nazis, Muslims, etc., but still believe I have the right to ban them from my community if we choose to because my beliefs are also not to be judged by others. This works best with lots of different communities.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that the reason why some Christians feel so threatened by moral relativism is because if it is true, then the traditional Christian idea of an absolute and objective moral code is simply not true.

Moral relativism is inherently a critique of Christian morality.

[One Degree]

I think that the reason why some Christians feel so threatened by moral relativism is because if it is true, then the traditional Christian idea of an absolute and objective moral code is simply not true.

Moral relativism is inherently a critique of Christian morality.

Granted, the idea could be considered a threat, but not moral relativist themselves. Christians are already aware of moral relativism, so the only threat is moral relativist not acting like moral relativist.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think that the reason why some Christians feel so threatened by moral relativism is because if it is true, then the traditional Christian idea of an absolute and objective moral code is simply not true.

Its not that its threatening, its that its abhorrent.

Christians don't really like mass-depravity and a world where anything goes, so a system that would implicitly permit such is abhorrent to us.

Moral relativism is inherently a critique of Christian morality.

Obviously, but so is any "non-Christian" morality.

Moral relativism is ideaologically honest, just not personally honest.

Its ideaologically honest to admit that without God there is no reason for there to be moral and ethical standards besides individual fancy, but its personally dishonest because the proponents of such actually think such an idea is both rational and sensible, neither of which is true.

[Pants-of-dog]

Its not that its threatening, its that its abhorrent.

Christians don't really like mass-depravity and a world where anything goes, so a system that would implicitly permit such is abhorrent to us.

This has nothing to do with whether or not morals are relative.

I realise you and your coreligionists have feelings about this, but your feelings do not mean that you are right.

Obviously, but so is any "non-Christian" morality.

Moral relativism is ideaologically honest, just not personally honest.

Its ideaologically honest to admit that without God there is no reason for there to be moral and ethical standards besides individual fancy, but its personally dishonest because the proponents of such actually think such an idea is both rational and sensible, neither of which is true.

This sounds more like judgement than argument.

Can you name a moral relativist philosopher?

[Victoribus Spolia]

This has nothing to do with whether or not morals are relative.

I realise you and your coreligionists have feelings about this, but your feelings do not mean that you are right.

I never said that it did. I was only addressing your remarks on being threatened.

I already refuted your appeal to relativism and have proven morality as objective elsewhere.

This sounds more like judgement than argument.

I've made my arguments earlier and elsewhere.

Can you name a moral relativist philosopher?

Diogenes.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never said that it did. I was only addressing your remarks on being threatened.

I already refuted your appeal to relativism and have proven morality as objective elsewhere.

So, your comments were irrelevant.

I've made my arguments earlier and elsewhere.

No. You hust made up ypur own definitions, made some incorrect assumptions, and dismissed my criticisms without any real substance.

Diogenes.

Did he use logic and facts?

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, your comments were irrelevant.

Only if the remarks made by you to which they were addressed are irrelevant. Namely, your claim that Christians feel threatened by moral relativism.

No. You hust made up ypur own definitions, made some incorrect assumptions, and dismissed my criticisms without any real substance.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Did he use logic and facts?

Not really, he didn't typically engage in arguments, mostly mockery and sarcasm.

The sophists might also be included as moral relativists because, they used arguments, but only to show that there is no morality or truth at all, which of course defeats the purpose of argument itself as Plato pointed out.

To be honest Pants, there really aren't many good examples of moral relativists in the history of philosophy (my field of actual academic expertise); namely because the position is so absurd.

Some contemporary thinkers have played with the ideas, but often they aren't really relativists upon closer examinations, just particularists (contextualists); which is different as it espouses epochal and cultural relativity, but not necessarily moral relativity (though I would argue the former leads to the latter, as many others have pointed out).

Indeed, some of the things you have said on the forum in the past make me think you might actually be more of a cultural relativist or particularist; not necessarily a moral relativist. Morally you are more of a consequentialist of one of the empirical schools of ethical teleology; like scientific utilitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#History

[Pants-of-dog]

Only if the remarks made by you to which they were addressed are irrelevant. Namely, your claim that Christians feel threatened by moral relativism.

Considering the large number of tracts from Christians about how we must stamp it out, and the fact that it is inherently a critique of Christian morality, I understand why they feel threatened.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Maybe after you explain your assumptions that I asked you to defend.

Not really, he didn't typically engage in arguments, mostly mockery and sarcasm.

The sophists might also be included as moral relativists because, they used arguments, but only to show that there is no morality or truth at all, which of course defeats the purpose of argument itself as Plato pointed out.

To be honest Pants, there really aren't many good examples of moral relativists in the history of philosophy (my field of actual academic expertise); namely because the position is so absurd.

Some contemporary thinkers have played with the ideas, but often they aren't really relativists upon closer examinations, just particularists (contextualists); which is different as it espouses epochal and cultural relativity, but not necessarily moral relativity (though I would argue the former leads to the latter, as many others have pointed out).

Indeed, some of the things you have said on the forum in the past make me think you might actually be more of a cultural relativist or particularist; not necessarily a moral relativist. Morally you are more of a consequentialist of one of the empirical schools of ethical teleology; like scientific utilitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism#History

Then name another.

If you cannot, perhaps you are not as expert as you think.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Considering the large number of tracts from Christians about how we must stamp it out, and the fact that it is inherently a critique of Christian morality, I understand why they feel threatened.

So we agree my comments were relevant then?

Good.

Maybe after you explain your assumptions that I asked you to defend.

What are you even talking about here?

Then name another.

If you cannot, perhaps you are not as expert as you think.

I just gave you a link with a whole list and a description of their claims, so what the fuck are you going on about now?

Have you been beaten up so bad today that you want to engage in needless redundancy?

[Pants-of-dog]

If you cannot show that moral relativist philosophers never used logic or evidence, then your assumption that relativism must be entirely subjective is unsupported.

Try again.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you cannot show that moral relativist philosophers never used logic or evidence, then your assumption that relativism must be entirely subjective is unsupported.

I never made that argument, so why would I defend such a claim?

I argued that moral relativism as a system does not allow one to argue on the basis of an objective criterion. which is true.

It doesn't matter what different philosophers claim or do not claim.

That would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

You should know better.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you made the claim that moral relativism does not ise logic or evidence, but you have not supported that cliam either.

I guess you cannot defend it so we can instead assume that moral relativism can and does use logic and evidence.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, you made the claim that moral relativism does not ise logic or evidence, but you have not supported that cliam either.

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?

I guess you cannot defend it so we can instead assume that moral relativism can and does use logic and 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.

[Pants-of-dog]

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?

[Wellsy]

A good summary towards issues with some typical moral relativist positions, found mostly towards the end: https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/21-relativism-nihilism.pdf