[extropy-chat] Moral relativism

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 7, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Bryan Moss wrote:
>
> Under normal usage, the moral objectivist would claim that there is  
> a fact of the matter independent of social norms, whereas the moral  
> relativist would deny this.  The two example responses you give are  
> neither objective nor relativistic, they could in fact be either.   
> A moral relativist would hold that "abortion is wrong, period" is  
> correct where that was the prevailing norm and "abortion is okay  
> given x, y, z" is correct where that was the prevailing norm; they  
> would claim that there's no method for deciding between these  
> social norms but that they hold within their respective  
> communities.  A moral objectivist would claim that there is an  
> absolute truth to the matter, that either "abortion is wrong,  
> period" or "abortion is okay given x, y, z" is correct, regardless  
> of the fact that there are communities that believe one,  
> communities that believe the other.
>

Oh my.  The conversation really has got that silly.  Can we stop  
now?  Clearly most of us have no idea whatsoever what we are talking  
about.

- samantha