Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
What do you think of these critiques of moral relativism?
1. The fact that different cultures and eras have had different ideas about justice and virtue does not say anything about the validity of these ideas, nor does it present any evidence against the existence of an objective morality or "natural law".
2. The premise of moral relativism, i.e. that there is no objective truth, asks us to exempt it from its own logic. We are expected to believe that there is no objective truth *except* for one: that there is no objective truth.
I think if you read the question, you'll see that we're arguing for the same thing.
While I respect your approach to it, Lou, I go farther - I believe that natural law is possible without reference to divine revelation, i.e. as a phenomenon accessible to human reason. Socratic examination best illustrates this possibility; it suggests that by gathering a multitude of opinions about an idea and methodically weeding out the underlying contradictions, we can approach (if not reach entirely) a rationally cogent picture of the truth or the whole.
3 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Point 1 is incomplete. While the existence of subjective morality does not rule out the possibility of a natural law, it does prove that any natural law that might exist is not a "law" at all, since it can clearly be ignored at will. At best, an "objective morality" can reach no higher a claim than "optimal morality". But then, this title is subjective, not objective.
Point 2 is only an argument of semantics. You conveniently substituted "truth" for "morality". They are not the same words in this context. Your statement would be correct if you said that it is an objective truth that there is no objective MORALITY.
In your comments, you indicate the socratic method as a potential method of identifying a "rationally cogent picture". But you (and Socrates) fail to recognize that it is logically possible to have a conflict of two or more "truthful" ideas or morality. Common examples of valid conflicts include whether God can make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, and the result of an unstoppable force encountering an immovable object. Two presentations of equally possible "truths" which cannot disprove the other. The same is true for morality.
- Law ManLv 41 decade ago
1. The fact that different cultures and eras have had different ideas about justice and virtue does not say anything about the validity of these ideas, nor does it present any evidence against the existence of an objective morality or "natural law".
What is is valid in some sense. If it wasn't valid, I wouldn't be.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They're good. There's laws in nature, like gravity, that I think extends to moral laws and these laws are a reflection of a higher order of creation beyond ourselves. Humans are so gross and so ignorant of the higher orders because of having evolved into the material universe completely and at the farthest extent away from their divine origin. That's why they come up with ideas like moral relativism since they can't really sense the natural order of life.
