Moral Relativism is an erroneous ethical theory.

========================================= Given definition of Moral relativism ========================================= I was willing to move past this, yet you seem to have a bone to pick. Which is fine. "This definition is simply stating that ethical standards are determined by culture - not that PEOPLE'S ethical standards are determined by their morality but that ethical standards themselves are determined by culture." Pleas read the definition carefully. Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore SUBJECT to a PERSON'S INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. If you didn't know, when something is subject to an individuals choice, then that individual choice IS a standard that APPLIES to that SPECIFIC individual. "If I wrote a debate entitled "Abortion is wrong", would you claim that this is a debate on descriptive ethics and not normative ethics?' Are you saying that it is impossible for a debate entitled "abortion is wrong" to ever be about descriptive ethics, and not normative ethics? "Likewise, there is no flaw on my part to say that MR is a flawed theory, and show how this is so" I wasn't aware that i accused you of a flaw by claiming that MR is a flawed theory. "Strawman. I stated that while descriptive moral relativism is true, the prescriptive version is not. I'm arguing against the prescriptive version, NOT the descriptive one." Not a straw man, and ill explain why, just for you. I cannot see the difference between your proposed descriptive theory of MR and your proposed prescriptive theory of MR. Why? Because both definitions can be applied to descriptive AND prescriptive ethics. ========================================= Prescriptive moral relativism results in a logical contradiction ========================================= "Another strawman - you love doing these huh? Not only did I specifically state in this section that it was an argument against PMR, but if you were to understand my argument then you'd see that it no way applies to DMR. DMR states how people hold their values, but it does not say if such values are correct or not - let alone able to be correct or not." Another strawman accusation - you love doing these, huh? First off, the theory of Moral relativism provides both. In other words, the DMR is the same as the PMR. Why? Because the reason why people held their beliefs, is the same reason why the theory is correct. Which is why i invite you to define both PMR and DMR, and ill show you why both are the same. Secondly, i see no straw man here. I neither misinterpreted your argument, nor presented anything that was not present in your argument to begin with. "I dare you to defend this claim. A = A can change via different logical systems? I hardly think so, this is an extraordinary claim that I beg evidence for." Not sure if you read my argument. I said that it is NOT A = A, but rather, A != B. Subjective truth values change. "So no, truth values CAN NOT change depending on the goal of a character. They are objective, and whether or not their true nature is known to human knowledge is irrelevant." ReallY? So what is the truth value of the following statement? "Star wars was the best movie ever made." "If you would take a quick Wikipedia search on the topic" So thats where you get your knowledge about philosophy from? ========================================= Conclusions and a few remarks ========================================= "This would be an incredible position to take, to say that the truth value of a claim is thrown away when an opposing opinion arrives." If i were you, id accuse you of a straw man. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said that the truth value of a claim is thrown away when an opposing opinion arrives. What I said, was that the truth value of a claim DEPENDS on the perspective, because they are subjective truth values. Different goals, different conclusions lead to different truth values. The above example, of "Star wars is the greatest movie ever." If the criterion for judging which movie was the greatest movie ever, was ONLY "A sci-fi movie that grossed the most money", what would the truth value of such a statement be? On an ending note, I am completely astounded by my opponents ability to read my arguments properly and understand what i am talking about. It seems as though my opponents arguments consist of accusations of logical fallacies and a hilarious note at the end: "since I'm fine with arguing against either version," my opponent has done nothing but criticize how he doesnt want to argue the DMR in favor of a PMR discussion. Although i was willing to forgoe our misunderstanding, and concentrate solely on the PMR, my opponent constantly brought the topic up as if he were unable to let it go.