@click here,
click here wrote:I have heard it said that an action by a moral relativist is deemed 'wrong' by how the action 'inhibits the growth of a civil society'
That definition just seems way to general to me and I think that a better definition needs to be created or shown.
Rape is often seen as wrong by a moral relativist because it appears to inhibit the growth of a civil society. My question is how is it determined when the act fully inhibits or imporves a society?
For example:
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.
What are your thoughts and or comments.
I think that a true relativist would say that rape as a moral wrong is relative to the society that defines it is as such. So in a civil society, rape would be defined as wrong. I believe I spoke to you about this some months ago. It was me who said that it depends upon a civil society, but that does not go for all relativists. Some relativists can be nihilistic, and in fact, some philosophers have argued against relativism as an ethical theory for that very reason.
I have since taken the meta-ethical position of moral universalism. All values are subjective (mind-dependent), but fundamental values should fit four criteria to be considered as such. A fundamental value should be universal, impartial, compatible, and maximal. In order for a value to be justified it should fit these four criteria. If a value does not at least fit the criteria of universality and impartiality then the value is relative to the valuer.
