| Khuutra said: 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). |
Well, yeah, I understand that it is an aspect of normative moral relativism that because there is no clear moral definition we should accept other sets of morals. I personally would challenge that area of moral relativism, I have every right to think someone else's morals are sick and they have the right to think mine are too. Maybe I don't fit the complete definition, but I'm siding with it mainly because it's the side I identify with most. Everywhere I look I can only see morals as a relative thing.
You can say I'm not a true moral relativist if you want, but I do accept that morals are relative. I'm willing to concede that in that case I don't fit the full definition, but I would argue I fit the general base of it.
To make a comparison, I don't have to agree with everything about abortion to be on the side of the pro-choice crowd in debates. I have my doubts on allowing abortion in some cases, but I side mainly with the pro-choice crowd because I identify myself with them.
But to be honest as you say I'm more arguing against universal (or absolute) morals, and this is because I can only see relative morals wherever I look. I don't see how many different standards of morals can exist and yet still be described as absolute.
On another note, I'm getting a little tired of this debate now. I've said all I need to say to be honest. Anything else from this point will largely be repetition.
