Talk:Moral universalism

message: This page, although interesting, was the personal credo of a humanist neo-Stoic, not an encyclopedia entry. So: being bold, I decided to change it. This has resulted in the replacement of pretty much the entire previous content (I've kept a historical reference to Stoicism). The 'History' and 'See Also' sections need to be expanded, hence the stub tag. I hope nobody's too offended.
--Sam Clark 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making encyclopedic

message: Moral Universalism is not the opposite position to Moral Relativism! Some Moral Universalist theories are in fact based on Moral Relativism (e.g. theories that say that while morality is relative to each and every individual human being, all human beings have similar enough experiences -- experiences that transcend culture such as birth, growth, puberty, suffering, love, death, etc. -- ensure that they also hold many of the same moral views).
Thus, it's incorrect to say that Moral Universalism is the opposite of Moral Relativism. Rather, Moral Absolutism is the opposite of Moral Relativism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tullie (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not correct! 

message: I've removed the following two unsourced sentences from the article as they appear to confuse moral universalism with moral relativism:
The characteristics of the universal ethic depends upon the wishes of the group of people to whom it applies.
A society has liberty when its mandates conform to and enforce the universal ethic accepted by its citizens.
-Pfhorrest (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: There are two paragraphs in this article referring to the views of someone named Foldvary, the editor of an online news site of questionable notability. They were previously stated as objective normative facts about the contents of the universal ethic, rather than about moral universalism as a meta-ethical theory. I've cleaned them up to present as the opinions of one author on morality, but their notability is still questionable, and honestly I don't think we should even have various peoples' normative claims on a meta-ethics page at all. -Pfhorrest (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Our readers could also be spared of Noam Chomsky's controversial and narrow-sighted views about George W. Bush and self-defense. There is no inconsistency in claiming universal right to self-defense and applying it against suppressive and aggressive regimes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.128.194 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passages of questionable notability 

message: The definition of moral universalism and the equivalence of other terms to it are now part of a larger project I am undertaking, regarding disambiguating the terms moral realism, moral objectivism, moral universalism, moral absolutism, and moral relativism. I have started a discussion about this at Talk:Meta-ethics#More_extensive_reorganization; please come by and contribute your thoughts there. -Pfhorrest (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta-ethics reorganization 

message: ack!  I misread the main page:  I thought it listed utilitarianism as a species of nonuniversalism but I see now that it only listed it as a species of nonabsolutism.  I'm less opposed to that and it's less obviously false so I won't bother to change it even though I think it's still incorrect.  Everything that is said below is a product of this misreading of mine, however I think it's worth leaving just as is anyway.  I'm a wikipedia novice so if someone wants to prettify this or move it off the front of the talk page for me then go ahead.  I'm only editing because the opening lines of the main page ticked me off and I think I have some contributions to make.
: First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, and I'm glad you are so eager to contribute. I've moved your comments to the bottom of the talk page (where new comments usually go) and properly titled it, per your permission above.
: I'm curious about your notion of moral absolutism. The current wiki article on moral absolutism reads...
: 
: ...which is the sense in which I've always heard it used, contrasting it with consequentialist theories. (That example there being one of the most famously controversial theorems of Kant's absolutist deontology).
: I'd be interested to see quotes from those other sources you mention supporting the notion of absolutism meaning overriding incommensurability of moral reasons. Incommensurable with what, in particular, I'd like to know. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilitarianism 

message: The second and third sentences of the lede need to be clarified. They are too technical for the general reader. makeswell (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical

message: In these edits 1234 we have some controversy over adding Relativism  to the See also section of this stub. The reason given for objection to this addition is As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes and reference to WP:ALSO. There is presently a link to Moral relativism in the article's introduction and in the See also section, but there is no link in the article to Relativism.
Thus, the apparent suggestion that a link to Relativism is already in the article appears to be incorrect. Although the policy WP:ALSO does suggest ″link redundancy″ as a reason to refuse a link in the See also section, that seems not to be the issue here. Consequently, the rejection of a link to Relativism appears unsupported at this point. 
An objection might be mounted on the basis that relativism as defined by:
:"Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"
has little bearing upon Moral universalism, so its inclusion is dubious. However, WP:ALSO suggests that See also entries  "do not have to be directly related to the topic", so there is a somewhat relaxed requirement for relevance. Nonetheless, it seems to me that relativism has only a tenuous connection to the subject, supporting its removal by Pfhorrest. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war over ''″See also″'' additions between Pfhorrest and user 172.56.10.54