this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
204 points (87.8% liked)

Memes

45581 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stu@lemmy.pit.ninja -2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I've never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you're just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Universal moral truths. Like absolutes. We can say killing is bad, but many would say killing a mass murderer currently on a murder spree would be more moral than letting them kill a bunch of people.

[–] nparkinglot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here that seems suspiciously like a bad faith argument.

[–] Cabrio@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Sure, and how does your understanding contend with the concept of a serial killer of Nazis? Or a capitalist?

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example

This does not follow from moral relativism. Moral relativism simply states the morality of serial killers is determined by people rather than an absolute truth.

For example, if you add the detail of “serial killer of humans”, most societies would deem that morally wrong. In contrast, “serial killer of wasps” would be considered perfectly fine by many. A moral relativist would say the difference between these two is determined by society.

You can, of course, claim that murdering humans is not morally wrong. A moral absolutist might say “you’re wrong because X”, while a moral relativist might say “I don’t agree because X”.