marciosmg said:
Khuutra said:
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 agains universal morality (which is distinct from moral absolutism).
|
Could you explain these more, please?
Im interested in the discussion.
Also, I think that what Slimebeast is talking about is SUBJECTIVE TRUTH X OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
He says (and I personally agree to be honest) that it doesnt matter what people thought in the past or nowadays.
Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not.
He thinks that you guys are sayng that there is no right and wrong. Only what the majority thinks.
Is that a fair assesment, Slimebeast?
And highway and Khuutra - Do you believe in objective truth?
|
Not really. Absolute truth is obvious. Almost no one denies the concept of absolute truth.
Moral could be described as some kind of truth but it's more than that. Right and wrong.
But you're on the right track.
Instead of "Truth (at least, certain truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."
I mean "Moral truths (at least, certain moral truths) exists either we know it or not. Or if we can prove it or not."
