Moral Relativism is the final redpill, debate me

Moral Relativism is the final redpill, debate me

pro tip:
you can't

Attached: 1556260160272.gif (660x780, 201K)

naive protagorean relativism for high schoolers. You should have moved past this after reading Aristotle. Plato even.

Oh wait...

yea you can debate it all you want but when an african tribesman throws a spear through your skull maybe you'll think "hmmm maybe moral relativism isn't that great"

Why should I follow any morals if morality is relative?

...

Error theory is the better anti-realist meta ethics

What you are refering to is Normative Moral Relativism, which I do not hold as a belief of mine. If some savage tribesmen were to attack me and kill me, of course I'd condemn their actions the seconds before my last breath escapes from me, but that would be only of my moral point of view. Objectively no one can say whether their doings are right or wrong since such a claim would only be a subjective judgement of the cultural society they live in.

Why aren't you an error theorist

but everything is relative, dumbass. When moral relativists use that argument to shut up someone talking of morality, what they are really saying is "since every morality is relative, then every morality is equal no matter what you do!". Same with the cultural relativist bs you find in late anthropology, justifying the behavior of completely underdeveloped countries.

Because two things are relative does not make them equal. Things being equal makes them equal. When two things are different in any way, then they cease to be equal. See Leibniz identity of indiscernibles. There is still an order of rank of moralities as long as there can be different moralities, which there obviously can be, since moralities can have different moral principles.

To try to neutralize the whole affair with a classic modernist misinterpretation of relativism is a dirty trick. But it is fairly easy to debunk by showing that knowledge is also relativistic, and distance is relativistic, and time is relativistic, and eyesight is relativistic etc. doesn't mean that all knowledge is equal (some knowledge is more powerful than other knowledge; it approaches closer to the essence of things), all distances are equal (the length from the earth to the moon is not the same as the length from my shoulder to my elbow), all times are equal (a year is still longer than a minute), and all eyesight's are equal (a person with 20/20 eyesight has better eyesight than a blind bat).

You are doing it right now, in the matter of fact. Even if you don't have particular vivid moral standards established in your mind which you follow strictly, your actions are enough to define by themselves your course and following on the 'moral' compass, even if you don't do anything and lay all day in your bed by yourself.

But aren't those two (almost) the same thing?

>Why should I follow any morals if morality is relative?
as if morals are something you follow, and not the other way around...

that was fast
/thread

ok you'd still be dead though

>Morals are relative.
>Relativity is now moral.

Lol

What book is that... oh...

If you don’t know what things are (because of their relative state of being) you can’t make a conscious decision, therefore every choice is equal.

But the 'equal' argument you are talking about refers more or less to the Normative Moral Relativism and its proponents, since the only people who claim that two or more things can be equal are the ones who passively justify any actions taken by some other group nevertheless how wrong they are. There is no 'weight' in any of the manifold individual/group moral principles, for to find out their 'weight' in comparison with our or others' thinking we cannot escape the inevitable presence of our own inner self conscious and subconscious moral narrowing. That's why it's called 'relative' - things are only objectively right or wrong within your mind, and the word 'equal' doesn't at all correspond with 'relative' in this context you are trying to push. As for that everything is relativistic, I agree, but this is more of a broader metaphysical problem - with the thread I meant a redpill only confined within the human behavioural existence, not the external world as a whole.

>ok you'd still be dead though
Yes, and your point being?

what does it mean for something to be relatively true?

wrong, because some choices have more power attributed to them.

Empirically true from a subjective point-of-view.

I agree with you that there is technically no "weight" to what we think because what we think isn't fact, and that "there are no facts, only interpretations", but do not forget that some interpretations are more powerful than others (i.e. APPROACH CLOSER to being objective).

Not when you shoot him first.
You shouldn't. Just get yours more than you get got.

Morality is a lot simpler than people make it to be. Morality consists of pursuing what you believe benefits you the most. The most moral action is simply that action which benefits you the most. But we do not always know what will truly benefit us. Wisdom cultivates virtue and morality. All the so-called altruistic or other vague and blind systems of morality are still based on self-benefit. There's no reason not to benefit yourself the most. But that often includes helping others and not committing crimes, because this maximizes future rewards while minimizing punishment.

I’m not sure what you mean

for instance (since knowledge is relative as well, I will use an example concerning knowledge), Newton's third law is a more powerful way of calculating the force of reactions of interacting objects than, say, always assuming that no reaction happened.

Therefore, morality is subjective in that not everyone has the same needs in any given situation. People seek self benefit in various ways depending on a lot of factors such as genetics, environment, etc. But theism offers us an objective moral system that is always true for every person. There is no escaping God's punishment, no matter how powerful you are. You may be able to outrun the authorities of this aorld, but you can't run from God. And that is why theistic morality is superior to secular moral systems. And of course, secular moral systems ignore the possibility of infinite reward or infinite phnishment, which is not conducive to self benefit

and why does this apply to morality but not, say, science?

Moral theories don't relate to things that actually exist and therefore while they're not equal because they're different in beliefs they all have one property that is equal which is how true they are i.e false

Of course. If we grew up in Aztec society or some other savage culture we would be fine with torturing and killing people. The only reason we're not is because we've been socialised into thinking it's bad.
Some memers will say that just because the Aztecs didn't know that killing was bad that doesn't mean that it's not objectively bad. Just like if someone didn't know that 2+2=4 it wouldn't make 2+2 not equal 4.
To that I say: prove it.

No counter arguments as always

Humans grasp of morality is relative certainly but morality is objective. Promoting a non hierarchical hedonism in a city ushers in destruction of a city in several ways necessarily

See

incoherent position. and i bet you mean moral nihilism

>There is no escaping God's punishment
you cannot prove abrahamic god's existence and his heavel/hell system
>inb4 pascal

Well said, but we do have to account for the fact that divergent populations will have divergent optimal moralities (although there will be a lot of overlap).

Low IQ = relativism
High IQ = perspectivism

Quads of truth

Define "benefit"

The entire concept of morality is subjective nonsense. Philosophy hasn't produced anything of value in hundreds of years.

Wait, I thought the Jews were the final redpill?

I agree entirely except I deny infinity is real

>no objectivity
Are you objectively sure perspectivism is right? If not why should anyone believe it's true?

In 2016 they were

In Conan the Barbarian, when he approaches Subotai for the first time, Subotai asks him for food and says "I haven't eaten in days" then Conan smirks and replies "And who says you will?".

is this philosophical or was he just being a prick?

Attached: 462443.jpg (1024x768, 126K)

You wont think anything at that point. Or if you do you'll think "huh, nothing I did down there on earth really mattered in the wider perspective that I have now been gifted by Death" and so that proves moral relativism to be reasonable.

they're the blackpill

Philosophy shaped our society (or humanity if you wish) the way that makes it seem obvious to you that morality is subjective nonsense. Hundreds of years ago things looked quite different.

The golden rule has an objective quality to it, even as it is fundamentally based on subjectivity.

Hey OP
Define 'moral relativism'
Define 'final redpill'
With kind regards,
Everyone

Hey, user,
use Google.
Sincerely, your beloved user.

Morals follow you?