| highwaystar101 said: Please tell me that you're kidding. I don't have to stand up for their position, I just have to prove it exists (which I have done) and that's what makes morals relative... Are you really that blinkered by your position that you can't even see that? Here's the definition of relative morals from legal-dictionary.com... "The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation" What exactly would proving that torturing babies is right do to prove relative morals? All I have to do is prove that people exist who do hold that moral position, and not hold it myself. That is more than enough evidence to prove absolute morals wrong It says their in plain black and white that relative morals are dependant on the individual or the society. I don't have to accept the morals of other societies, I just have to prove they exist, which I have done. You say I'm not in a strong position, but my argument is solid. Clearly completely different sets of morals exist in different societies, and that proves relative morals. (Sorry for the brutal honesty in this paragraph) The only reason you want me to defend a position I don't hold and would add nothing to the debate is because you know that you're on your last legs, and so you 've made up a false position that you claim I have to hold in order to prove my point (when I don't have to hold it to prove my point at all). It's dishonest debating. |
I would just liek to point out that you're not actually arguing for moral relativism, you're arguing against universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).
