What is the basis for ethical realism and why is it important?

[superwolf]

Should we oppose what?

Stoning in Iran.

 

[JoeDawg]

Should we oppose it?

How do you intend to oppose it?

 

[OB 50]

Betterment is relative.

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Stoning in Iran.

We should oppose it and make an effort to marginalize or eliminate those that endorse such a thing. There is no conceivable societal benefit to stoning or oppressing women. Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting. It is a symptom of an immoral society which will not be able to sustain itself if it continues to allow such things.

 

[JoeDawg]

Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting.

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

 

[OB 50]

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe. If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

I do not subscribe to that way of thinking, so I am merely apathetic.

 

[JoeDawg]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Moral relativism and cultural relativism are not synonymous.
But both are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Understanding how one's own culture affects one's biases, and judgments helps anthropologists evaluate other cultures with the least amount of bias. Just like with any scientific experiment, outside contamination can ruin the observations we make. Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one country chooses to invade another, except maybe that good reconnaissance also involves blending in and not affecting what you are trying to observe.

Moral relativism is simply an acknowledgment that there is no absolute/objective standard for morality. One must accept that the 'premises' that we rely on for ethical judgments are generally arbitrary. There is no 'right way'.

That said, once we accept certain premises, and decide to put value on consistency in behavior and such, we can certainly make decisions based on logic and/or instincts.

If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

No. I acknowledge they have a different moral system than I do. I also put more value on mine. I just don't pretend mine is written in stone somewhere. I also put more value on mine, than on those shared by many Americans.

Being apathetic means you don't care what happens. Some moral relativists are apathetic to the plight of women in Iran. But its not a requirement. Some moral relativists put a high value on not interfering with other cultures. But its not a requirement. In fact, THAT'S the whole point. There are no requirements. It doesn't mean you can't build a straitjacket of moral rules to live by. You can do that too.

I value my own judgment on ethical issues, most people do. Right or wrong is little more than opinion. That said, I'm certainly willing to back up the ethical decisions I make, at least until someone convinces me to change my opinion.

 

[OB 50]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

 

[JoeDawg]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

Sounds about right.

 

[superwolf]

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Why is existence better than non-existence?

 

[superwolf]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Why "beliefs"? It's not a religion, is it? I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist? Is there nothing in between the two extremes?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That each case must be treated differently doesn't make moral realism untrue. If x makes X happy and y makes Y happy, it is moral to give x to X and to give y to Y.

All I want to rob poeple of, is the ability to determine that they don't value happiness. Even if different things make people happy, everyone must value happiess. Happiness is valuable per definition, I dare say. Since happiness is valuable, we should try to obtain as much as possible of it.

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

 

[JoeDawg]

I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist?

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

 

[Moridin]

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

No, it is moral realism. Moral realism means that the validity of moral statements depend on reality, whereas moral relativism says morality is arbitrarily subjective.

 

[Moridin]

For example, theft is the simultaneous assertion and rejection of universal property rights, which cannot stand.

 

[Moridin]

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

Objective morality / moral realism is not moral absolutism and should not even be used in the same sentence :p. It is like confusing liberal Christianity with a satanic cult that eats babies. Moral realism is incompatible with god(s), since supernatural god(s) can arbitrarily change the facts of reality, thereby nullifying any empirical support.

 

[JoeDawg]

For example, theft is the simultaneous assertion and rejection of universal property rights, which cannot stand.

Well, that's one opinion.

Its way more complicated than that however.

First, it must be agreed that property rights exist.
Second, it must be agreed that a particular object belonged to a particular person
Third, it must be agreed that another person took possession of that object in a way that implied ownership, when ownership was not indeed transfered.

Individual property rights is a relatively new concept.
Its easy to claim ownership on all sorts of grounds.
There are all number of different levels of possession.

Ultimately it becomes a matter of legal consensus, not really morality.

 

[superwolf]

The problem with utilitarisnism is that it says that it may be right to kill innocent people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it is moral realism. Moral realism means that the validity of moral statements depend on reality, whereas moral relativism says morality is arbitrarily subjective.

Precisely as I said. If you apply values to your moral propositions based on subjective opinion it is moral relativism.

 

[superwolf]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

 

[JoeDawg]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

Thing about proofs is they depend on premises. Different premises, different logical results.

Your argument from life is incomplete. Most life that has existed, never lived long enough to procreate, and all life ends in death. If you take a representative sample of all life that ever lived on planet earth, your conclusion would be that life values death, above all else. Some just achieve that goal quicker than others. Procreation is therefore immoral.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moral realism is established in the moment you can show that evverybody should value something. That people disagree is not an argument as long as the proof is valid. I came with this proof in the OP.

So you determine what other people should value? And exactly what value they should attach to it? Its one thing to say that everyone does or should value something (generally everyone values their own life for instance, easy argument) its a whole other issue to determine precisely what value should be placed upon that thing. Consistent relative values between different factors in moral propositions is necessary to an objective rule of measure.

 

[superwolf]

Everyone should value life, therefore ethical realism is true.

 

[Moridin]

Precisely as I said. If you apply values to your moral propositions based on subjective opinion it is moral relativism.

No, that is by definition moral realism, since the morality part is objectively true, even if the underlying values are relative. Morality is not equal to values.

 

[Moridin]

Well, that's one opinion.

Its way more complicated than that however.

First, it must be agreed that property rights exist.
Second, it must be agreed that a particular object belonged to a particular person
Third, it must be agreed that another person took possession of that object in a way that implied ownership, when ownership was not indeed transfered.

Individual property rights is a relatively new concept.
Its easy to claim ownership on all sorts of grounds.
There are all number of different levels of possession.

Ultimately it becomes a matter of legal consensus, not really morality.

Not at all. Any statement that simultaneously reject and affirm the existence of jaxyplonk is an invalid position, even if we know nothing about jaxyplonk.

 

[Moridin]

So you determine what other people should value? And exactly what value they should attach to it? Its one thing to say that everyone does or should value something (generally everyone values their own life for instance, easy argument) its a whole other issue to determine precisely what value should be placed upon that thing. Consistent relative values between different factors in moral propositions is necessary to an objective rule of measure.

Values are the functional equivalent to biological needs. But as stated earlier, even if values where subjective, that which we should do to fulfill values (= morality) is not. It is true that in order for my car to function, I ought to change the oil in my car. This is objectively true, even if other people do not value their cars. This is what individualist morality (as oppose to collectivist morality) is about.

 

[JoeDawg]

Not at all. Any statement that simultaneously reject and affirm the existence of jaxyplonk is an invalid position, even if we know nothing about jaxyplonk.

Thats the problem with abstractions, they don't really exist in any measurable way.
Universals are just opinions, they have no solid foundation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Values are the functional equivalent to biological needs. But as stated earlier, even if values where subjective, that which we should do to fulfill values (= morality) is not. It is true that in order for my car to function, I ought to change the oil in my car. This is objectively true, even if other people do not value their cars. This is what individualist morality (as oppose to collectivist morality) is about.

Moral realism states that moral propositions are objectively true or false independant of subjective opinion. If the objective truth in a moral proposition is changed by the subjective values placed upon the factors in the moral proposition it is no longer objective and no longer moral realism.

A living organism needs nutrients to continue living.
This is not a moral proposition or dilemma, it is simple fact. The moral proposition or dilemma comes into play only when you begin to consider the relative value of the resource nutrients versus the continued life of the organism and these two things relative to outside circumstances.
The use of facts in moral propositions, of itself, does not constitute moral realism. All moral philosophys include facts in their moral propositions and then resolve those propositions based on a measure of value; absolute value in the case of absolutism, objective value in the case of realism, and subjective value in the case of relativism.
These are part and parcel to the definitions of each philosophy.

 

[baywax]

Ethics are our theories on morals, and morals are what we should do. But why do we need ethics? The human being is a living organism, and we have to choose between life and death. Maintaining life depends on certain actions. It is the existence of life that gives rise to values, because it is only for living entities that things can be good or evil.

Values express our relationship to things that benefit or hurt a living organism. To say that something is of value for an organism, is to say that it maintains the life of an organism. For instance, when we say that water is valuable for a plant, we are saying that water supports the life of the plant, which is an undisputable fact.

Ethics therefore have a fundament in empiri. The sphere of values is therefore not separated logically from the sphere of facts. Normative considerations can therefore be derived from facts. Several specific sciences care about normative considerations. In medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that should be carried out to maintain health. But for the decisions of the doctor to be vaild, they must be bassed on objective knowledge, facts about human nature though physiology, anatomi, etc. Ethics is therefore a normative science.

A normatiive consideration is to say that we must act in a certain way to obtain a given target. A doctor should do X if he wants to cure his patient. In the same way, ethics are theories about what we should do to obtain Y. We therefore have to find what this target is that we want to obtain. What should we value more than anything? If we don't know this, we get a problemm motivating actions, solving conflicts, something Immanuel Kant knew perfectly well.

Happiness is the ultimate goal. I have therefore proven that those actions that lead to less suffering and more happiness, relative to other choices, are the moral ones. Utilitarianism is true.

It is important to note that this is not only about the consequence of the action for the external environment, but also for the very person that acts. Ethical theories are therefore objective.

Although the word ethics describes the rules, morals and accepted conducts of the human species, in that these conducts maintain life and liberty among them, I don't think ethics is a phenomenon confined to living systems alone.

Ethics is a description of balances between actions and elements. It is true that ethics serves to continue life but if you are able to extrapolate the functions of ethics to non-living systems, you'll see that the checks and balances of ethics have also made it possible for the universe in general to survive.

I personally equate ethics with the efficiency of any system. If a system, living or not, doesn't maintain a certain set of ethics... as in ethical conduct between elements or actions... then the system proves itself to be inefficient and is soon extinct.

The laws of nature are the ethics of the universe whereby the laws of humans are the simple imitations thereof. We do our best to establish congruent and consistent ethics to maintain an efficient system of societies and cultures. We lose some and we gain some... while the universe has had considerably longer to naturally select those laws that have let it survive for so long.

 

[Moridin]

Moral realism states that moral propositions are objectively true or false independant of subjective opinion. If the objective truth in a moral proposition is changed by the subjective values placed upon the factors in the moral proposition it is no longer objective and no longer moral realism.

This is clearly false. Even if you don't value your car, the conditional "if you value your car, you ought to change the oil when it needs to". This is not something that varies between people or cultures. It is not the case that cars do not worth without oil in Iraq, but not in the United state.

The use of facts in moral propositions, of itself, does not constitute moral realism. All moral philosophys include facts in their moral propositions and then resolve those propositions based on a measure of value; absolute value in the case of absolutism, objective value in the case of realism, and subjective value in the case of relativism.
These are part and parcel to the definitions of each philosophy.

You are confusing value and morality here. They are not the same.

 

[Moridin]

Let me make the following argument against moral relativism with the reformers dilemma. By moral relativism I mean the position: "that which is moral is determined by culture".

1. If moral relativism is valid, then all moral reformers are mistaken.
2. It is not the case that all moral reformers are mistaken.
3. Moral relativism is invalid.

It is clear that if moral relativism is valid, then any societal moral climate is valid within that culture and the moral reformer is challenging the true moral values of his culture. It seems also quite impossible to deny the second premises, because it means you have to hold things as slavery and the Holocaust as morally correct and that the moral reformers who challenged these beliefs where morally wrong. Thus, it follows, that moral relativism is invalid.

To get out of this argument one can simply accept the position of moral realism or simply plunge further into irrationality by holding morality as an entire philosophy to be intellectually vacuous / cognitively meaningless. The reason I say this is because in a rational argument, moral nihilists have to make arguments that presuppose things along the line of "you ought to hold as true that it is true that it can never be true that you ought to hold anything as true" and other self-contradictory beliefs.

Now, I consider moral absolutism in the theistic sense to be just as absurd as moral relativism and there are many arguments against such as moral philosophy, such as the (atheistic) presuppositional argument from morality, the Euthyphro dilemma etc.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is clearly false. Even if you don't value your car, the conditional "if you value your car, you ought to change the oil when it needs to". This is not something that varies between people or cultures. It is not the case that cars do not worth without oil in Iraq, but not in the United state.

"A car engine needs oil to operate properly" is not a moral proposition. Rewording this and tossing in the qualifier "If you value your car" does not change this.
"It is wrong to kill" is a moral proposition. If the value placed upon "life" and the value placed upon what could theoretically be gained or lost by taking that life are based on subjective opinion then any truth or fallacy in the proposition is subjective/non-objective/relative.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:
-Ethical sentences express propositions.
-Some such propositions are true.
-Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

You are confusing value and morality here. They are not the same.

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

A personal and cultural value is a relative ethic value, an assumption upon which implementation can be extrapolated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values

Morality is dependant upon values. Without values moral propositions can not be true, false, or in any way meaningful. To make claims as to the possible truth, fallacy, or meaning of moral propositions is to make claims about values.

Let me make the following argument against moral relativism with the reformers dilemma. By moral relativism I mean the position: "that which is moral is determined by culture".

1. If moral relativism is valid, then all moral reformers are mistaken.
2. It is not the case that all moral reformers are mistaken.
3. Moral relativism is invalid.

It is clear that if moral relativism is valid, then any societal moral climate is valid within that culture and the moral reformer is challenging the true moral values of his culture. It seems also quite impossible to deny the second premises, because it means you have to hold things as slavery and the Holocaust as morally correct and that the moral reformers who challenged these beliefs where morally wrong. Thus, it follows, that moral relativism is invalid.

I have already shown the fallacy in this argument. There is no moral prescriptive in moral relativism. If you think there is then please find a standard definition that says so and show it to me. There are many moral relativists and they all are possessed of their own moral codes, some of which may contain the belief of non-intervention, but by the very definition of moral relativism there is no right or preferred moral code.
Even if we accept the assertion that a moral relativist is possessed of the moral imperative to accept validity of any moral code and the right of its adherents to act upon it then logically the relativist accepts the validity of their own moral code and their right to act upon it aswell. I can not damn you for doing what you believe you should do, but I can damn myself for not doing what I believe I ought to do. The argument taken to its full logical conclusion invalidates itself.
The idea that 'the nazi or slaver possesses a "right" to act and the relativist has the "right" to interefer is contradictory' is not a problem for relativists, it is a problem for those looking at relativism through other than a relativist perspective. You are saying that relativism is invalid because realism invalidates it.

The notion that statements about morals are themselves moral statements is absurd. I may as well say that statements about mathematics (ie "Math is hard") are equivalent to mathematical statements (ie "1+1=2").

And to try to fully bring all of our realist vs relativist arguments together

That is not a prescriptive, but descriptive statement. But yes, all prescriptive statements are ultimately morally descriptive statements, since they prescribe an attitude to claims.

A prescriptive statement is not by definition moral in nature. A prescriptive statement sets down a rule and a rule can be moral, itellectual, mathematical, artistic, scientific, mechanical, linguistic, logical, ect. A rule can be subjective: based on opinion and belief, or a rule can be objective: based on observation and reason. If you believe all such rules are moral in nature than I suggest we simply stop discussing this since I do not wish to read the dictionary according to Moridin so we can understand one another.

 

[Huckleberry]

If moral values are subjective then moral realists will arrive at different conclusions as to what is moral. Since moral realists do not all agree on what is moral or why an act is moral, how is this any different from moral relativism besides in theory? The end result is still that morality is unique to the values of the individual, and those values are influenced by the culture they live in.

The proof posed for the invalidity of moral relativism is false. Moral relativism does not have objectively true or false moral statements so a moral reformer is not correct or mistaken objectively. The rest of the argument falls apart because the premise cannot be confirmed. The proof attempts to hold moral relativism to a moral realist standard. In effect, it basically says that if moral realism is true then moral relativism is false. Though if it is true that values are objective then the proof would make a moral realist position invalid because any moral reformer would then be mistaken and the proof assumes that all of them aren't.

I don't think any philosophy is factually correct. They are logical structures attached to uncertain premises like "everyone should value life". While I agree with that statement, and I could see how a logical argument could be made that valuing life would benefit our survival, I don't see how this in itself is a factual statement independent of the desired result of survival. Unless someone claims that the survival of life is important to the universe, and not just to the conscious beings that value living, then I don't see how utilitarianism, or any other philosophical argument, can claim to be completely objective. They can only claim to be reasoned in accordance with an accepted premise. The premise may be true or not, but if it were fact then there would be no reason to ponder that argument philosophically. It would be science.

 

[JoeDawg]

1. If moral relativism is valid, then all moral reformers are mistaken.

This is patently false. Moral relativism means there is no objective truth, so no one can be 'mistaken'.

Everyone simply has an 'opinion', based on their subjective experience. Some people, quite a lot, will have similar experiences(this is where cultural relativism comes in) and therefore share certain 'opinions'.

By saying that two conflicting opinions must imply one is 'mistaken', you are simply claiming that objective morals exist. And while this may be true, you have not shown any way one could logically determine what is objectively moral.

Not even science deals with 'truth' objectively, it attempts to be as objective as possible, but science is about evidence and probability. All of which is perspective dependent and relativistic. Objectivity is an ideal, objectivism is idealism.

 

[Moridin]

"A car engine needs oil to operate properly" is not a moral proposition. Rewording this and tossing in the qualifier "If you value your car" does not change this.

Never argued it was. All I am arguing is that "if you value your car, you ought to change the oil" is a (true) moral proposition. Try to pay attention.

"It is wrong to kill" is a moral proposition.

This is not a moral proposition since it does not refer to any real life values or empirical facts.

If the value placed upon "life" and the value placed upon what could theoretically be gained or lost by taking that life are based on subjective opinion then any truth or fallacy in the proposition is subjective/non-objective/relative.

That is like saying that the facts of science are arbitrarily subjective just we value investigation into that particular field. Furthermore, some core values are objective since they are the functional equivalent to biological needs.

Morality is dependant upon values. Without values moral propositions can not be true, false, or in any way meaningful. To make claims as to the possible truth, fallacy, or meaning of moral propositions is to make claims about values.

No, just like making scientific fact claims is not to make claims about values.

I have already shown the fallacy in this argument. There is no moral prescriptive in moral relativism.

Yes there is, since moral relativists has to assert that "you ought to hold moral relativism as valid" when they attempt to enter a rational debate. If you think they don't have to do this, then you must agree that moral relativism is intellectually indefensible in a rational debate. I have explained this at least a half a dozen times, yet you refuse to listen. Why is that?

There are many moral relativists and they all are possessed of their own moral codes, some of which may contain the belief of non-intervention, but by the very definition of moral relativism there is no right or preferred moral code.

No, that is moral nihilism. Moral relativism means that a moral proposition is true within a culture if and only if it is supported by a culture.

I can not damn you for doing what you believe you should do, but I can damn myself for not doing what I believe I ought to do. The argument taken to its full logical conclusion invalidates itself.

But that is of course a form of moral realism, not moral relativism.

The idea that 'the nazi or slaver possesses a "right" to act and the relativist has the "right" to interefer is contradictory' is not a problem for relativists, it is a problem for those looking at relativism through other than a relativist perspective.

Not at all. From the position of a relativist, the Holocaust is morally good since the Nazi culture held it as morally virteous.

The notion that statements about morals are themselves moral statements is absurd. I may as well say that statements about mathematics (ie "Math is hard") are equivalent to mathematical statements (ie "1+1=2").

No one has said that statements about morals are themselves moral statements, but the moment you try to make any claims in a rational debate, you are actually making a moral prescription, such as "you ought to hold the position that the Holocaust is an historical fact because of x.y and z.

A prescriptive statement is not by definition moral in nature.

How absurd. That is like claiming that a mathematical statement is not by definition mathematical in nature.

A prescriptive statement sets down a rule and a rule can be moral, itellectual, mathematical, artistic, scientific, mechanical, linguistic, logical, ect.

No a prescriptive statement is about true preferable behavior, that is, morality.

If you believe all such rules are moral in nature than I suggest we simply stop discussing this since I do not wish to read the dictionary according to Moridin so we can understand one another.

You are just upset because I have demonstrated that your position cannot get off the ground because it instantaneously undermines itself. Tough luck. :)

 

[Moridin]

This is patently false. Moral relativism means there is no objective truth, so no one can be 'mistaken'.

Again, no. That is moral nihilism, not moral relativism. If you cannot understand the difference between these two positions, I suggest that you step away from this conversation. Cheers.

Everyone simply has an 'opinion', based on their subjective experience.

Is that an objective fact, or simply your opinion? If it is a fact, then it is not the case that everyone just have opinions. If it is simply your opinion, we can brush it of without consideration. It is like this all forms of relativism instantly self-destructs on deployment.

By saying that two conflicting opinions must imply one is 'mistaken', you are simply claiming that objective morals exist. And while this may be true, you have not shown any way one could logically determine what is objectively moral.

Yes I have. I have even stated examples of true moral propositions, such as you ought to prefer consistency over inconsistency, truth over falsehood etc. If consistency is not objectively preferable over inconsistency, you must consistently apply a procedure called inconsistency, which is self-refuting.

Not even science deals with 'truth' objectively, it attempts to be as objective as possible, but science is about evidence and probability. All of which is perspective dependent and relativistic. Objectivity is an ideal, objectivism is idealism.

Are you really claiming that science is an arbitrary social construction? Are you really so dogmatic about your relativist religion that you dare to stoop to such lows like calling science relative to defend your worldview? Kind of sad, really.