3 ms·

It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "

It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be judged in the context of a certain time, place, and set of cultural practices.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.
- fasterik 3y ago
  Maybe your objection works for a relativist who makes claims like "one ought to tolerate moral practices of other cultures". But I don't think all relativists are making that claim. Some are just rejecting any notion of objective moral truth.
- krapp 3y ago
  >Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. Except it doesn't. Moral relativism doesn't make any claims about the way one should behave. It's entirely consistent with a moral relativist point of view to oppose commonly accepted morality. Moral relativism merely asserts that there is no absolute arbiter of good and evil, no immutable arc of history towards freedom, no inalienable right. Everything is a matter of opinion and consensus, and consensus is always fluid.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.

fasterik 3y ago
Maybe your objection works for a relativist who makes claims like "one ought to tolerate moral practices of other cultures". But I don't think all relativists are making that claim. Some are just rejecting any notion of objective moral truth.
krapp 3y ago
>Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. Except it doesn't. Moral relativism doesn't make any claims about the way one should behave. It's entirely consistent with a moral relativist point of view to oppose commonly accepted morality. Moral relativism merely asserts that there is no absolute arbiter of good and evil, no immutable arc of history towards freedom, no inalienable right. Everything is a matter of opinion and consensus, and consensus is always fluid.