Hello all,
Looking at the idea of moral relativism, I can see how a lot of discussion and unproductive arguments can come about. The basis of moral relativism is that the morals of the individual are up to the individual. For example, one person could say it’s okay to lie in order to protect the happiness of another, however a second person could hold the belief that it’s not morally right to lie at all. With both ideas being equally privileged, both could state that their beliefs are morally correct with respect to moral relativism. Should these two individuals attempt to argue their points, there would be no clear victor in the debate. The idea that there is no objective rights and wrongs, if someone is following moral relativism correctly, can result in vastly different positions that moral objectivists would firmly agree or disagree with. Taking the previous example, following moral objectivism, one could say that lying is wrong is a moral fact and if someone were to lie, they would be performing an immoral act, regardless of the intent of the lie. Similarly to an argument between two relativists, an argument between a relativist and an objectivist would have a similar outcome due to the position of the relativist being based on the standpoint of the relativist. All that would result in this argument is the objectivist stating that the relativist is committing an immoral action, and the relativist stating that from their standpoint, it is a moral action. Again, there would be no clear victor in the second debate as well. -Billy