Was there ever any such thing as a 'moral relativist'?

Question

Since religion provides no basis for morality, religious folks like to bandy this 'moral relativist' term about in relation to atheists as a kind of defence mechanism to avoid acknowledging the moral bankruptcy of their own beliefs... but can a 'moral relativist' ever really exist?

To be a moral relativist means that you think something might be morally wrong in your opinion but morally right for someone else, if they think it is. So, for example, you might think it morally abhorrent for someone to rape your 10-year-old child but if another person thinks it's morally right then you would say to that person "Oh right, if you think it's OK then it must be morally right for you to do it, so go ahead".

No, in reality no-one ever actually thinks like that, so 'moral relativism' doesn't exist and never has done.

Chris: Yes, we all do. It's called a 'conscience'.

Chris: No, none of that makes sense, quite apart from the fact that gods are fictional.

Vin: ... :-)

answer man: Sorry but you misunderstood what the term 'moral relativist' actually means.

Rance: You misunderstand the term too.

Answer 1

Defence Mechanism ......Moral bankruptcy?......lol.

I think there is a degree of moral relativism in every culture including christian.

Answer 2

religions, in their more extreme moods, have moral absolutes or sins if you like (abortion is a good example). Atheists or non religious people don't follow the concept of sin (having no religious doctrine), they have personal morals instead. The consequence being that they don't see right or wrong in absolutes and have to think through the grey areas for themselves, leaving themselves open to the charge of moral relativism.

In the abortion argument the religious right would say, its a sin, all life is sacred. The non religious person could argue what about if the child is conceived from rape or the family already has 10 children and can't support another or the pregnancy will kill the mother and so on.

The moral absolutist will brook no exceptions, while the relativist will be more open to rethinking his or her stance depending on the situation.

Answer 3

The fact that moral relativism is a self-contradictory position, is no proof that no one has ever professed it. All it proves is that those who profess it aren't very bright. I have personally met several people who believe that we can't judge other people's morality on the grounds that what's "true for us" is not necessarily "true for them". A lot of people defend terrorists in this manner.

The argument you gave against moral relativism is exactly correct. But guess what? The only viable alternative to moral relativism is moral objectivism. This means that some things are objectively moral and some are objectively immoral.

The problem atheism has is that it allows for no objective way to prove which are which. Since morality is something immaterial, a materialist has no idea what to do with it. Since morality can't be seen, touched and measured, then as far as a materialist knows, morality can't be anything more than a certain arrangement of electrons in our brains. Accordingly, outside our brains it doesn't exist. Accordingly, my morality may be different from yours, etc.

If you know a way out of that conclusion I would like to hear it. You can e-mail me.

Answer 4

I disagree. Morality is quite relative. Christianity provides us with excellent examples of this. For instance, in the bible it states that it is legally lawful for a parent to stone TO DEATH a disobedient child. While perfectly acceptable then it would be considered morally reprehensible today. Then there are dualist forms of morality. Another one for Christianity...canabalism. While everyone openly repels at the idea of canabalism...Christians practice it all of the time. Catholics believe that when they take communion that it LITERALLY turns into the body & blood of Christ! By definition, if this were true then it would consitute canabalism. Most, modern day Christianity groups do not take the communion literally but still practice SYMBOLIC forms of canabalism.
Or you can look to society in general. A few decades back homosexuality would have been viewed purely as a perversion. Today, more & more it's viewed more as a choice or lifestyle. In ancient Greek cultures it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have a young boy as a lover. Today we cringe when we hear that a boy spent the night with Michael Jackson! In pioneer days it was not uncommon for girls to be married as early as 11 or 12. Today who would consider this to be morally acceptable.
You state that there is no such thing as moral relativism but history would seem to disagree with you.

Answer 5

A moral relativist would say there is definitely not moral relativism unless you think there is.

Answer 6

How simplistic can you be?
Many think abortion is the murder of a child, others think it is a choice.
Some support the death penalty, others don't.
Some feel it's OK for people to come into our nation illegally and gain the benefits of our nation while giving nothing back. Others feel this is wrong.
Some support stem cell research, others don't.
A moral relativist may think stealing is wrong.....except if the person really needs what they steal.
Or breaking the laws of our nation is wrong.....except if someone really needs to get into our country illegally.
Or killing is wrong.....except if it's a person in a persistent vegetative state.
And on and on and on.

Answer 7

So someone, somewhere, is deciding what is right and wrong, and where the line is drawn.

Then it's hypocritical to judge a person for saying that there is absolute truth. Because there is absolute truth, and it is in the Bible.

The only way to go to heaven and not to eternal hell after this life is to believe that Jesus, who is God, died for our sins on the cross and rose again.

Answer 8

You are born with unconditional love to anyone who shows you kindness. Thus,.. people learn to protect themselves from evil. (distrust is the first sign of hate, for love and trust go hand & hand. Why else do "players" get away with so many lies,.. they earn love to abuse trust) Some people even accept evil and take part of the game.

People learn indifference (the void of love) thus they value worldly things above the people they deal with.

The Kingdom of Heaven is that of a child. Thus, we must become like children to enter heaven. It's the renewal of the spirit that we need. It brings sensitivity back into our hearts (then they tell us to lighten up and stop judging).

Answer 9

Sure,I used to know one. He lived in an old tiny frame house out at the edge of town. Eventually he killed someone.

Answer 10

you drew a real humdinger there in that chris.

if there is any such thing as right and wrong, then the bible must be true?

i suppose if there is any such thing as coca cola, that must make the bible true as well.