Is it actually? As far as I’m aware, it doesn’t really make any statements that anything is moral or immoral, nor is it a framework that could be used to determine such things by itself, more so a statement on the validity of such things. Or in other word, is it really a moral thesis, or is it a thesis about moral thesis?
Yeah I don’t understand the point the meme is trying to make
You’re on the right track here. It’s a metaethical claim, not a moral one.
You could argue that moral relativism is a metaethical thesis and so is not straight away self-defeating. Even so, moral relativists often go on to claim that we shouldn’t judge the moral acts of other cultures based on what we take to be universal moral standards. Because, get this, it would be wrong to do so.
I’m not smart enough to understand anything in this conversation, but “Metaethical” seems like it would be a good metal band name
Followed by Postmetaethical when they lose a member
This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
I’m not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
I’m not sure it’s the SAME but if there were a system of created ethics that were able to speak to everything and do so consistently… Wouldn’t we know?
Why would we? Ethics can be just as opaque as any other subject. It took us thousands of years to get economics, psychology, etc. to where they are.
Yooo. You are onto something here.
Is it that it’s wrong or simply that it lacks proper context? Like if you’re going to judge a culture you should learn the culture that seems obvious even without the arguments about morality
This just in: Literally everything in life is made up as we go along.
Except table manners. Those are dictated by the Universe itself!
- All tables must be proper and well-behaved.
What do you do with rude tables?
Use them as firewood
Read somewhere that the elbows thing comes from the days where tables were just planks of wood sitting on something. Your elbows would tip the board over so it was a dick move to knock everyone’s food over. Anyway idk if it’s true but it’s a neat idea
Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody’s gonna die.
Come watch TV?
ITT: bad philosophical arguments
Welcome to every discussion on every digital medium that’s ever existed?
What’s important is you all remember I Am Right And You Are Wrong
Think you mean Welcome to Earth
Well, this one seems to be going over better than your last philosophy meme.
I appreciated both of them, by the way.
Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment. I’m still going to take a pause on the philosophy memes as I literally can’t stop myself from arguing in the comments and I should be working lol
Is it not?
According to Morality and Ethics 101, a universal moral truth is an ethic.
I’ve never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you’re just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.
How about the fact that all morals are made up and therefore obviously relative to those who made them up? There may be instinctual preference on many, but that doesn’t make it a universal rule.
The fact the morality was invented makes it synthetic but not necessarily relative. Numbers are also “made up”.
Its possible that moral truths are objective but our interpretation of these objective truths is imperfect and therefore seems relative.
To use another commenters example, the fact that killing is not morally blameworthy in some cases doesn’t mean that an absolute moral truth doesn’t exist but just that our concept of killing is just too broad to express it.
the fact that all morals are made up
You’re starting from the basic axiom of moral relativism. A moral absolutist would disagree with this axiom.
And all I would have to do would be reference the multitudes of cultures across the earth and through time that have vastly differing morals.
A moral absolutist would argue that most, or even all, are wrong in one way or another. One can be a moral absolutist without claiming to be able to evaluate the morality of any particular scenario.
To provide an analogous example, there is a two-player game called Hex for which it has been proven that there exists a dominant strategy for the first player, but a generalized winning strategy is unsolved. One can soundly assert that such a strategy exists without knowing what it is. Likewise, its not fundamentally invalid to assert that there exist absolute moral truths without knowing what they are.
Most people would go with murder but then again there’s honor killings.
Universal moral truths. Like absolutes. We can say killing is bad, but many would say killing a mass murderer currently on a murder spree would be more moral than letting them kill a bunch of people.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here that seems suspiciously like a bad faith argument.
Just because there aren’t moral truths doesn’t mean a serial killer did nothing wrong. You seem to be stuck on finding a single contradiction and using that to dismiss everything else related as irrelevant. That’s not actually how the world works.
Similarly in physics, the existence of non-newtonian fluids, doesn’t invalidate Newton’s work in fluid dynamics.
deleted by creator
It all starts with defining what morality means. The way I would define morality is behaviors that maximize flourishing for sentient creatures and minimize suffering. While it is clearly difficult to quantify flourishing and suffering, there are behaviors that clearly cause suffering in this world and impede the opportunity for flourishing and, by the above definition of morality, are plainly immoral. The way I see it, rejecting the possibility that flourishing and suffering can be quantified at all is the only argument that can be made against moral absolutism. Everything else is just quibbling over relevant variables across the spectrum of available behaviors to determine what makes them more or less moral. There is always a behavior that is objectively the more moral choice, but it might be difficult in practice to determine which is the more moral choice due to a lack of available relevant data. The absence of said data shouldn’t be assumed to be because it doesn’t/can’t exist, but rather that it hasn’t been collected. Rejecting the idea that there is always a more moral behavior amongst several choices is the dangerous assumption, imo.
deleted by creator
Sure, and how does your understanding contend with the concept of a serial killer of Nazis? Or a capitalist?
If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example
This does not follow from moral relativism. Moral relativism simply states the morality of serial killers is determined by people rather than an absolute truth.
For example, if you add the detail of “serial killer of humans”, most societies would deem that morally wrong. In contrast, “serial killer of wasps” would be considered perfectly fine by many. A moral relativist would say the difference between these two is determined by society.
You can, of course, claim that murdering humans is not morally wrong. A moral absolutist might say “you’re wrong because X”, while a moral relativist might say “I don’t agree because X”.
