Greetings to all...

I maintain that absolute constucts of morality do not exist, or, if they should somehow exist, they are unknowable and uncommunicable.

I think it's obvious that morality is relative. =)

I maintain that any conception of morality is relative to one's:

- intelligence
- education
- societal mores
- life experiences
- personality

Even if there was a system of absolute morality, each person who is capable of comprehending such a system is still subject to their individual interpretation and comprehension of that system. Therefore, in a pragmatic sense, absolute morality could exist, but would be impossible to communicate. Equally, if it did exist, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain of it.

I submit that it is impossible for two people to have the exact same comprehension of morality even if they both generally agree to the same principles. Their interpretation will still be unique.

I challenge anyone to disprove this claim.

You are the one making positive assertions. The burden of proof is with you.

And since this is basically a "ethics is subjective" argument you are assuming what you think you are proving.

You have proved nothing other than the question begging nature of your position.

Ill give it go at disputing your view..is personal morality of any consequence? we all have agreed views on certain moral attitudes and if the individual goes against them its not because they disagree with them its because they are morally corrupt.There is a distinct difference between morals and tribal weakness...certain aspects of peoples attitudes are usually through corrupt leadership becoming accepted behaviour through education..where religion corrupts the morals of its followers there is always a consensus who will rebel or be persuaded by logic that they are corrupt eventually...How am i doing??

I'm not assuming anything; I'm making an supposition, which you glibly avoided with semantics. I didn't state that my position was absolute proof of anything nor that it was true. I asserted that I believe it was true.



When you learn the difference in a statement of proof and a supposition, get back to me.

Ill give it go at disputing your view

..is personal morality of any consequence?

we all have agreed views on certain moral attitudes and if the individual goes against them its not because they disagree with them its because they are morally corrupt.

There is a distinct difference between morals and tribal weakness...certain aspects of peoples attitudes are usually through corrupt leadership becoming accepted behaviour through education.

where religion corrupts the morals of its followers there is always a consensus who will rebel or be persuaded by logic that they are corrupt eventually...

How am i doing??

Premise:

"There are no objective ethical truths."

Your premise is not my premise.

It demonstrates logical fallacy of the ethcial subjectivist/relativist view. That is sufficient.

And, obviously morals are going to appear objective. Human values are very similar. But in order to be inherently objective, every human mind must have the same factors that contribute to defining one's own morals.

This proves that objective morality is not a reflection of society, nor is it possible.

Steerpike said:

Oh, I see. So you're responding to something I never said.

That's a Strawman Argument.

Irrelevant appeal to popularity.

Objective truth is not dependent on values or agreement.

No. Merely demonstrating the logical fallacy of the entire premise. Whether you specifically cited it or not is irrelevant.

Are we arguing truth or morals here? This thread is on moral relativism. Morals cannot be truth, only opinion. The only truth is in the consequences of the actions defined partially by the morals.

No. Merely demonstrating the logical fallacy of the entire premise. Whether you specifically cited it or not is irrelevant.

Steerpike said:



But you didn't respond to my entire premise; you picked out the part that you wanted to respond to.

That's a Strawman Argument, no matter how you slice it.

Oh well; there's one at every party. Have a nice day. :flowers:

Steerpike,

You didn't respond to the argument I made. You picked out the part that you thought you could disprove, but what you are trying to disprove is not what I said at all.

So basically you're arguing with yourself.

If you want to address my entire premise, I'll be happy to respond. If not, then I'm done discussing this matter with you.

Have a nice day. :flowers:

I think it's obvious that morality is relative. =)