47
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
no edit summary
No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).
No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).
Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does. harmlesstree
== It has been linked... ==
== It has been linked... ==