Quote:

In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.



That's wikipedia. Morality and truth are rather intertwined. I believe relativism is accepted, because people don't believe there is any absolute truths. They see people disagreeing and say, "Why should any of them be any more right than anyone else?"

I don't think its an accident that theists often believe in absolutes, and atheists do not. Theists see something greater to the universe. A purpose, or a design. So they feel that it would be logical to believe that (even if they get it wrong every now and then, its only because they're disobeying a greater standard). Atheists view the universe as accident, without purpose and meaning. We can never get it wrong, because there is no right. So by extension our perception of truth and meaning are all based on accidents. Maybe you can correct me where I'm wrong.

This is why relativists keep mentioning that people can't agree. To an atheist, humanity is the ultimate cognitive power in the universe (in a sense). So whatever we decide, is true, even if it contradicts what other's decide.

However, based on both of those meanings to relativism (moral relativism is the same as relativism because morality is a lot like truth), you must assert that in order for your view of relativism to make sense and in order to apply it to morality and truth in general, you have to assert that its absolutely true.

Truth is an unavoidable topic of relativism. But I don't think it has anything to do with our selves, or objects, actions, etc directly. Truth is roughly defined as:

Quote:

Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence



It needn't be complicated. You can talk about truth without worrying about physical actions like hitting a keyboard key. In this case, we're talking about the truth of morals. Moral relativism works on the principle that the truth of morality is relative to persons or groups. So we can view truth in the context of morals, and it would be preferrable, because any other kind of truth is, frankly, irrelevant.

In other words, in regards to truth, I believe that in order to believe relativism, you must admit that all truth is really subject to our own experience and choices. That there is no ultimate truth to anything we believe. The difference in actions like hitting a keyboard key is that there isn't any room for relativism. Either the key moves, or it doesn't. And we can study it. However, non-physical truths are subject to our own subjective experience, and so relativism says that they technically only exist in our minds. Much like evolution asserts we evolved God in our mind. We made up our own perceptions of truth, and thus no one is right except in their own minds.

Do you disagree?

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/26/06 04:23.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."