4 ms·

> This is moral relativism. You can't build anything on moral relativism. So what exactly makes your morality absolute? Can you provide any evidence for it? M

> This is moral relativism. You can't build anything on moral relativism. So what exactly makes your morality absolute? Can you provide any evidence for it? Most people give hand wavy answers to this question, mumbling something along lines of intuition etc, which is not evidence, but as arbitrary and relative as some random choice of initial values for some random moral framework.

Tainnor 6y ago
I'm not arguing for moral absolutism. Both that and moral relativism are deeply flawed. It's a fact that different people have different perceptions of morality, but that alone is not a sufficient argument to shut down any debate about ethics. It is our duty as moral individuals to fight for what we think is morally right. And sometimes we will have to compromise. But I'm tired of having to argue for why LGBT rights are important (something that I really would have hoped would be understood by now), since that is not the point. The point is that OP gave an example of a decision that "would spark an outrage" and I contended that that would be the case because it would be seen by the outraged as an immoral decision. You can't take people's rights to be morally outraged away from them. You can, at the most, try to argue with those people why the supposedly immoral thing is not actually immoral, but I haven't seen anyone here doing that: only people defending the truism that "everyone has different moral standards". Which... yeah.
- jedimind 6y ago
  That's not even the point. You are throwing around with the word 'moral' around a lot and it seems to me that you don't even understand the basics of moral philosophy. Your usage of 'moral' seems to be merely a rhetoric device to give more weight to your opinion, but what does that even accomplish when you fail to deliver any evidence for your morality? You just make a lot of claims, but you fail to back them up, so they are and remain nothing but that, baseless claims. It's basically just your opinion, which you are trying to wrap in the garment of 'morality'. So if you are moral realist and your morality is easily discarded, why should they care? If you are a moral anti-realist and still make moral value judgments, which are also easily discarded without consequences, why should they care?

Tainnor 6y ago

I'm not arguing for moral absolutism. Both that and moral relativism are deeply flawed. It's a fact that different people have different perceptions of morality, but that alone is not a sufficient argument to shut down any debate about ethics. It is our duty as moral individuals to fight for what we think is morally right. And sometimes we will have to compromise. But I'm tired of having to argue for why LGBT rights are important (something that I really would have hoped would be understood by now), since that is not the point. The point is that OP gave an example of a decision that "would spark an outrage" and I contended that that would be the case because it would be seen by the outraged as an immoral decision. You can't take people's rights to be morally outraged away from them. You can, at the most, try to argue with those people why the supposedly immoral thing is not actually immoral, but I haven't seen anyone here doing that: only people defending the truism that "everyone has different moral standards". Which... yeah.

jedimind 6y ago
That's not even the point. You are throwing around with the word 'moral' around a lot and it seems to me that you don't even understand the basics of moral philosophy. Your usage of 'moral' seems to be merely a rhetoric device to give more weight to your opinion, but what does that even accomplish when you fail to deliver any evidence for your morality? You just make a lot of claims, but you fail to back them up, so they are and remain nothing but that, baseless claims. It's basically just your opinion, which you are trying to wrap in the garment of 'morality'. So if you are moral realist and your morality is easily discarded, why should they care? If you are a moral anti-realist and still make moral value judgments, which are also easily discarded without consequences, why should they care?