What does leftypol think of moral relativism?

What does leftypol think of moral relativism?

Most of leftypol are misinterpretations of Stirner that encourage moral relativism

Personally, I think it's a useless term. All morality begins at the level of the subject, even deontology.

I think it's bad but I'm not one to judge.

The inevitable conclusion of that ideology is that morality is bullshit.

Which ideology?

Moral anti-realism =! moral relativism
Not just in a "those words do not cover the same positions", but as in "Those positions are completely 100% incompatible".


So does the vast majority of people educated in the subject, so good on you.

sophistry
virtue ethics ftw

Relativism. It is like a cop-out multicultural version of nihilism.

you have to make a pretty complex argument for any set of moral beliefs. I find it much easier to just not have any

I think you should be exiled to some shithole and subjected to a random act of terrible violence

I think you should be forced to read Hegel.

Liberal bullshit. Socialism is morally objectivist by nature, based on normative observations of labor relations irrespective of culture.

I think people conflate cultural and moral relativism. While it's important to realize that it was culturally acceptable for Aztecs to slaughter thousands of people during festivals and rituals I don't think we have to shy away from calling it out as an immoral practice.

No thank you.

When you make statements about objective truth, you're probably wrong. There's nothing special about our particular time in history. We're no more likely to be correct than the ancient Egyptians or Aztecs.

If there is no objective morality, where does the greater revolutionary spirit arise form?

human nature

vulgar moral relativism is self-defeating

this is philosophy of ethics 101

read a book niqqa


can't you see? it presupposed an already existing moral belief system - one that must necessarily override the other views which it claims must be respected!!

it combines the worst of circular logic, and also of self-defeating logic

error theory 4 lyf, based mackie

Ethics, not morals tbh

Is this what people understand moral relativism to mean?

As far as I'm concerned it literally just means that there's no objectively true system of morals. You don't have to respect other people's - you should just recognize that yours is equally arbitrary.

So human sacrifice might be morally sound?

I don't think it is and I'll oppose it, but a future society might conclude that it is morally sound. There's no way to objectively determine which is correct.

What you can prove is that human sacrifice doesn't work.

Quite on point, and I say this as a nihilist.

that is the definition of moral relativism as understood by philosophers - known as "vulgar relativism"

if you believe that there is no objectively true system of morals then you are either an antirealist or a non-cognitivist

or you actually do have underlying moral biases which colour your judgement, but don't realise it because you haven't studied the topic enough yet

that's not meant to be a diss sorry if i offend!not trying to bully..this is a no bully zone fellas

Why? If no moral truth exists or if no moral code is better than another why would you interfere?

Everyone has a moral bias that colors judgement retard. If you delude yourself into thinking you are immune you are doubly susceptible and anything you type should be looked upon with extreme skepticism.

user confirmed for never having read a book, ever

get some of this down ya my dude and come back with a reasoned response beyond name-calling

it's only 14 pages user, come on

Because it makes me happy.

This is the first post you should look upon with extreme skepticism.

wow what a witty one-liner my dude! what a zinger!! really got me there my man haha guess i'd better kill myself

user is a faggot who can't read

Bourgeois as fuck

Anyone who answers any differently is COINTELPRO

There is no real difference between ethics and morals.

you're shit and so are your opinions.

its fucken lit

Morals dont exist. They are not relative to anything.

Some morals are relative and some are so universal it should be considered objective.

Morality is based on principle, ethics apply to the practical or virtue based systems

Piss off, Kant.

Holy shit, I'm not well read on this subject but damn it looks pretty fucking bad in this thread.

I know I'm literally putting words in everybody ITT's mouth, but I think it's pretty fucking hypocritical to complain about liberals and people on the right for dismissing Marx and leftist theory without ever reading a single word, while feeling completely justified in taking a strong position on complicated issues - like the existence and nature of moral facts - without even familiarizing yourself with the positions and arguments of people who read books on this subject, much less read a fucking book on it yourself.

On-topic:
I think it's a joke that entails some really silly conclusions, and while there are some people educated in philosophy of ethics that subscribe to the view, afaik most just bite the bullet and accept those conclusions. I just don't see any reason to do that, since other positions seem to be just as strong (or even stronger), while not having to deal with the problems that follows with moral relativism.
While it seems the majority position on Holla Forums is either anti-realism or nihilism, I personally am most convinced by moral realism, and [spoiler]deontology, but [spoiler]virtue ethics are pretty convincing as well. I just haven't read any relevant theory.[spoiler] I haven't even read Kirkegaard, which is quite shameful considering that I speak Danish.[spoiler] Please don't kill me rebel[/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler]

This is the second post you should look upon with extreme skepticism.

Well, fucked up that formatting pretty bad.

I know this is just one out of an atrocious many of statements that are really shitty philosophy but

This is literally wrong.
Not the case.
Opposite of true.
Unless you can find a single source pf philosophy of ethics that confirms your claim, I'll keep on making fun of you every time I see somebody say that shit on here.
It's just so fucking silly, and it's every time somebody brings up this discussion, somebody feels the need to say something stupid about the "difference between the word morals and the word ethics". Yet I've never ever in my life seen anything say that - with regards to philosophy - there is any difference between the meanings of the two words. Much less any specific meaning some whack just made up on the spot in an imageboard thread.

Nigger please. You are talking about a subject that half this board has read books on. The fact is that we, like any rational person would, recognized that there is no objective basis for morality and that subjective morality has no valid authority. Morality is an empty concept. Telling people to read a book does not make Kirkegaard's bullshit any less fundamentally flawed.

They are using "ethics" to mean what Kant calls "hypothetical duties."

Any position other than moral relativism is rightist reactionary bullshit.

Moral relativism is an objective fact. Denying it means going backwards.

Both statements about X are rather obviously true, yet one of these results in the rejection of moral realism, while the other doesn't result in the rejection of an objective reality? (I assume that you hold the position that there is reason to believe that epistemic statements are truth-apt.)

There is no reason to believe epistemic statements, except regarding the existence of the self, are truth-apt if you accept the second statement.

I hold that you fucked up your copy/paste.

If you don't agree, by your moral relativism you give me every right to murder you in your sleep as a perfectly normal and moral thing to do.

Never mind. I am too fucking tired for this shit. It was a long day.

You can have all the rights you want.

normal != moral

Indeed I did.


Just to clarify, I posit that if you believe it follows from statement one that moral realism is false, then just must necessarily also hold that epistemic realism is false.
I personally don't accept that moral anti-realism follows from statement one, because I need stronger argumentation to accept epistemic anti-realism.
Just to avoid confusion, when I say 'moral realism', I take it to mean the view that "Moral statements are truth-apt", and likewise I take 'epistemic realism' to mean "Statements about reality are truth-apt".
If you accept that epistemic anti-realism follows from your line of argumentation, then I'll refrain from arguing further.
I just have not read enough on the subject to make any convincing line of argumentation on this front. Epistemic realism is for me, so far, a baseline assumption, from which moral realism follows. I accept that you can reject this assumption.

Pretty much this. The morality of society is decided through dominance, not objective value.

What people think one ought to do != what one ought to do

Of course, there is no more objective basis for morality than there is for reality. Therefore, if you reject any possible subjective basis for one you must do so for the other.


It seems quite intellectually dishonest to me if you would accept moral anti-realism on those grounds but reject it out of some bizarre squeamishness of accepting epistemological anti-realism.


Those are pretty accepted definitions.

I just have not read enough on the subject to make any convincing line of argumentation on this front. Epistemic realism is for me, so far, a baseline assumption, from which moral realism follows. I accept that you can reject this assumption.

The real question is why you feel the need to make such a baseline assumption.

The argumentation goes:

S1: For statements to be truth-apt, there needs to be either an objective basis for for determining truth, or some authority to subjective determination.
S2: There is no objective basis for morality
S3: Subjective morality has no valid authority.
It follows then from S1 through S3 that
C1: Moral anti-realism is the case.

I accept S2 and S3, and reject S1.
There, no intellectual dishonesty.
My point is that even if I accept S2 and S3, C1 doesn't necessarily follow without further argumentation for S1, which hasn't been given. Therefore I feel justified in rejecting C1, since it goes against other conclusions I hold that have stronger argumentation.
It just so happens that I don't think I accept S2, either.

I'll be honest and say it's because skepticism doesn't give satisfying answers for me. The belief in an external world might not have any rational grounds, but it does have some existential grounds. I guess I'm just taking a leap of faith :^).
Like I said, I'm not well read on this subject. Got any good reads against epistemic realism, other than the standard Cartesian argumentation?

It's not as if the universe is going to declare that you're a bad person for doing so. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that the very laws of physics adhere to my likes and dislikes.

Kinda tangential, but why are rightist so spooked by moral relativism?

Particularly those who are more traditionalist than racialist.

Without a Divine authority It's obviously correct on a cultural level, though it depends on whether you think it prescribes any action (or inaction) whether you agree with it or not

Because it says they aren't morally superior to brown people

sorry muke, you're the one who's the shittiest of all

Holy shit, you are totally obsessed.
Get a life, dude.

He is also right.

utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism utilitarianism

Morality doesn't exist. "Moral relativism" is an impossible metaethical stance.