Simple. For every negative there is an equal or greater positive. This is a law that cannot be avoided and a law within nature and all the Universe. Everything is completely and utterly balanced until you and I get our hands on it. LOL.

So, things happen. If they are bad, there is good in them. If they are good, there is bad in them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The misconception is that we, meaning you and I and all other humankind, create the good and bad. We are the imbalance of a balanced Universe.

Edit: Removed the Off-Topic Rambling

the example is false- it uses one isolated case in an attempt to prove a rule wrong. Essentially while in this case thousands of people are indirectly happier because they now have clean water, that isn't comparable to how many would be happy if there was no rape. Moral codes and systems should, as was pointed out, help a society- individualistic lines of causality make no difference- societys need rules and boundaries.

Also is the example actually possible? What I mean is that can you really claim that raping this woman lead directly to saving people in Africa? For a start she obviously had some potential in her to do impressive things- that would be how she manage the whole water thing- the drive towards that is a good thing, but why would it have to be a rape, and who is to say the drive would have come naturally? Moreover who's to say that even if this woman hadn't had this 'drive' that the water wouldn't have come from somewhere else- she presumably had people who financed her work, and these people could just as easily financed another. Arguably she just filled a niche another could have.

Basically the problem with this example, as with so many, especially in modern philosophy, is that it takes a Gods eye view- it claims knowlage of the unknowable; we will never know the causes and consequances of action and motivation as this example claims. If we are to look at this from the perspective of God then I will counter by looking, I hope more clearly, throught that same lense. A bad thing has happened, a rape, but God brings the good from all bad things and comes to a good conclusion- in essecence gives the woman strength, hope and determination from her suffering. However no Christian could say the crucifixtion was a good thing- it was the torture and execution of the son of God, but it brought about the most wonderful thing ever to occur. However that does not change the fact that crucifixtion is bad.

In the end we must look to this example as our guide. We mourn the death of Christ even as we celebrate his ressurection. In the same way in this case we should mourn the wrong done to this woman, even as we rejoice in her newfound strength. That people emerge stronger, and that good thigns come from bad, should be a spur to end evil, not propogate it. That somthing good has come from a rape should be a spur to end all rape forever, not to allow it.

I'd still be interested in hearing more if anyone has a better defintion for moral relativism. I think that many subscribe to this defintion and continue from there to say one thing is wrong or right. I still say that by their own definition they can not clearly say one way or another.

Jenny gets raped by Mike. Jenny use to be a very quiet woman that wasn't going anywhere with her job. This act of rape gave her the fierce desire to advance in her job because she now is a more driven individual. She started her own business that in 10 years grew to be the largest company to provide clean water to thousands in Africa.

When she was raped that act was good because it influenced the positive growth of a society and benefited many more people then those that it affected negatively.

Ok, well I'm going to wing it here because I've had little sleep and am on a semi-conscious roll here [INDENT]Moral relativism is that view that says there is no wrong or right in any objective sense; that an act may be wrong for you (or me), or in a certain culture but it - in an of itself - cannot be always called wrong. Loose Example: A Moral Relativist might say that Female Circumcision/Castration is 'right' if you live in a remote Ethiopian tribe, but wrong if you live in Dublin Ireland (culturally-dependent relativity).
[/INDENT]How'd I do?

And this caught my eye, in the opening post:



I see that some here might have gotten "wrapped around the axle" on this example. But I think I see the point; Can a 'wrong' act, which results in some, any or more good be then called 'right' on any level?

If I've taken your question right here, I'd say that we're mixing apples and oranges: This comes back to the "sum total"/Amount of Happiness-arguments. In my view, an act which I deem 'wrong' can't ever be said to be OK if the end results nets good. Examples:

• I find rape to be so terrible, so violating, that even if it (say, via Hollywood) miraculously saved the human race, it'd still be wrong and I wouldn't support it.
  
• If I esteem torture to be wrong, then even if it could result in saving thousands of lives, I wouldn't do it.
  

I'm not sure how close to the mark I hit here - I'm hoping it at least landed in the ballpark.

Thanks

I am not asking what a defintion of moral relativism is. I'm asking how does a moral relativist define when something is wrong.

Fair enough though then what I wish to know is how you deep rape being wrong? What is your defintion under moral relativism that would make something 'wrong'. Through your own opinion why is rape a wrong thing.

The above crime is deemed wrong because:
1) it is illegal (wrong relative to the law);
2) it is antisocial (wrong relative to social mores);
3) it causes pain and torment to another (wrong relative to how we would like to be treated by others).

This is how I, as a moral relativist, deem actions to be wrong. I would agree that the prior definition falls somewhat short even of the theory of moral relativism.

As for its adverse side-effects, these are accidental and beside the point. Since there was no intent to produce those effects in the mind of the criminal, the 'wrongness' of his actions are unblemished.

Number 1 (and 2 relates): That doesn't make sense to me. So you as a moral relativist base what you view as wrong based off of how the government views it as well? Moral relativism by defintion is not to reflect objective truths. If your basing what you view as wrong off of absolute laws then it isn't relative at all its absolute...

That is no different then if I were to call myself a moral relativist and then to say that I deem something wrong as to what the Bible says about it. In both situations you are deriving from some sort of 'universal' law yet calling your decision a subjective decision?

You can't also base what you view as wrong just on as the government views things as in many other countries the government has no issue with many things that you may take offense to so I just don't see how you can call something wrong based off the law yet call yourself a moral relativist.

Why do you view something as wrong outside of the law.

I think I am looking for a better defintion for moral relativism. Because with the defintion I have seen a moral relativist even under their own umbrella can not call one action 'right' or 'wrong'.

There are different kinds of moral relativism.

There is cultural relativism which states that: an action is right or wrong if and only if S (the society in which the act occurs) believers an action is right or wrong.

There is, then, individual relativism which states that: an action is right or wrong if and only if P (the person judging the action) believes an action is right or wrong.

The possible objections to these conceptions of moral relativism are numerous, but I'll bring up a few for thought (not that they have not been introduced already, but that perhaps by introducing them in light of these two types of moral relativism the objections might be more useful).

With individual relativism, the primary objection should be fairly obvious: individual moral relativism is not a moral theory, but a theory that denies the value of moral theories. Individual moral relativism has no explanatory value, it does not tell us how or why we should act. Not to mention the fact that no one, I think, would honestly claim to support individual relativism: it could not be said of Adolf Hitler that some of his actions were immoral according to individual relativism.

Cultural relativism has a number of problems. First, there is the objection from abhorrent practices: we might bring up cases of culturally accepted genocide or infanticide. Then there is what could be called the opinion poll objection: no society enjoys unanimous consent on any moral question. Cultural relativism cannot allow for moral progress, nor can cultural relativism account for moral reformers: cultural relativism could not, for example, claim that MLK or Gandhi's moral reforms were good or bad.

Then there is the question of: what is a culture? When you begin to break down any society in light of cultural relativism you end up sliding into individual relativism.

Cultural relativism is an appealing theory because it eliminates the cultural-egoism that has so often stifled research into foreign and unfamiliar cultures. However, there are other means by which cultural-egoism can be eliminated, so I do not see the need to hold onto cultural relativism any longer.

Though I think another issue for cultural relativism is that it really is no different then individual relativism. It is just that many people except that view. Though for those that do not except that view it holds no ground.

I am not asking what a defintion of moral relativism is. I'm asking how does a moral relativist define when something is wrong.

So, most moral relativist end up talking what what I feel vs. what you feel, much like Dr. Phil, Oprah, or Springer. It's easy to talk about moral relativism, rather hard to live out consistently.

Well, isn't that the point. If one had consistent moral codes, one would not be a moral relativist surely? Consistency sounds like subscription to me.