Moral Relativism is True

Thank you for this debate. At the outset, let's keep our focus straight. My argument here is not going to be ethically popular. There are reasons for this. If moral relativism is true then there are ultimately no moral grounds to claim that one act is objectively morally superior to another act. We instinctively don't like this because we instinctively want to believe that our own views of morality are correct. But this goes further. If moral relativism is true then you can't really say that ANY ACT is morally wrong. Well, that's of course something we don't like. But not liking an idea doesn't make it false. The opposite position is a well-known logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Consequentiam or "Appeal to Consequence". For example: 1. If God doesn't exist then my life has no ultimate meaning. 2. It would be bad if my life didn't have ultimate meaning. 3. Therefore God must exist. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) I am making this very clear at the outset because I don't want the readers to start off with a negative attitude towards a proposition, for mere emotional reasons. The fact is, we are starting from scratch and we present our arguments from nothing. And whether or not we emotionally like a particular outcome should have nothing to do with it. That's what an HONEST QUEST FOR THE TRUTH is all about. Let's then get started. Moral relativism is a philosophical position that essentially denies the existence of a moral absolute. There are three main branches of moral relativism. I prefer to look at them as three types of EVIDENCE for the existence of moral relativism. These are: Descriptive Realtivism, Meta-ethical Relativism and Normative Relativism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Some commentators, however, only see two types, such as: Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism (http://www.moralrelativism.info...) These are just names. The propositions behind them are identical. Individual Individual morality is relative. This is evident to anyone who has ever considered any moral proposition. Things that some people consider morally right, others consider morally wrong. Take abortion, for example. On the one hand, there are people who go out to bomb abortion clinics. Those people are so strongly convinced that abortion is a horrible moral wrong that they consider themselves justified in committing murder in order to punish an abortionist and/or to prevent them from performing abortion. And, on the other hand, there are people who believe that there's nothing wrong with abortion at all. Another example is that of lying. Most of us believe that (at least in some forms) lying is wrong. However, there are those who have absolutely no problems with telling lies in ANY GIVEN circumstance. That, of course, is one extreme. Then we enter the middle ground with various examples of the types and degrees of lies that are acceptable ("no, honey, you're not fat!"). And of course at the other extreme you find people who believe that it's wrong to tell anything but absolute truth. (It's interesting (though irrelevant) that the 10 Commandments do not prohibit lying. They only prohibit false testimony AGAINST another person.) Morality is an individual set of standards. Everyone's morality seems to be different (albeit slightly, depending on what culture they are brought up in). This is evidence of a complete lack of any moral absolute. People have varying moral standards and each believes that his/her standards are right. Cultural Cultural morality is relative. Moral standards differ between various communities. Christian communities often have members who believe that the Bible is the source of all morality. These people make a moral decision to defer to a particular moral standard. Muslim communities often have members who believe that all moral values are contained in the Koran. These people equally make a moral decision to defer to a particular moral standard. Both of the above examples are examples of a morality that usually stems from upbringing. But even in cases where we are concerned with a converted Christian or Muslim, they accept the moral standards of a particular cultural group. Bikies are another example. The moral standards of a motorbike club are often vastly different to those of many other social groups. Committing a felony is often not looked at as morally wrong. In fact, some bikie gangs have been known to MANDATE it for the purpose of the initiation ritual. That's not to say bikies don't have their own laws. They do. But in their books, it is morally wrong to EVEN TALK to the police. Bikie justice is conducted by bikies. The above examples are of "sub-cultures". But of course moral relativity can be demonstrated on the examples of cultures as a whole. There are entire countries where huge majorities of the population believe in the Christian moral standards or the Muslim moral standards. And historically there have been many cultures that have had even more widely varied moral values. We've had tribes that thought it justified to eat people. We've had tribes that mandated abortion in certain circumstances. Morality is largely a factor of upbringing and of group-generated standards. It's relative. Groups differ, just as individuals do. Meta-ethical The above two sections clearly demonstrate that, as a matter of empirical evidence, morality varies from person to person, from community to community and from culture to culture. But what about a purely philosophical perspective? Is there an entirely A Priori (literally "from the front" but refers to "purely logical, without relying on observed facts" http://www.wordiq.com...) argument in favour of moral relativity? Yes, there is. If you were to postulate the existence of a moral absolute, you'd have to say that some moral values are wrong whilst others are right. But in order to do so, you would have to demonstrate that there exists an independent moral yardstick that allows you to assess which moral values are right and which ones are wrong. What is that moral yardstick? Well it would have to be a moral absolute. So, in order to demonstrate that a moral absolute exists, you have to first rely on the existence of a moral absolute. The argument is circular! It begs the question. It relies on a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Conclusion Morality is relative in every sense of the word. It is empirically seen to be relative. It is also A Priori relative, as the alternative relies on a logical fallacy. I look forward to my opponent's argument.