An argument that moral relativism is wrong.

Thread starter Tigers2B1
Start date Jun 9, 2004
Tags

Argument

AI Thread Summary

The discussion argues against moral relativism by asserting that humans are not born as "blank slates" but rather with a genetic predisposition toward certain moral behaviors, such as empathy and shame, which serve to strengthen social bonds. It presents examples from nature, like birds cooperating to remove ticks, to illustrate how genetic advantages promote altruistic behavior within social groups. The conversation also highlights that moral judgments are influenced by evolutionary pressures, suggesting that feelings of fairness and disgust toward cheaters are rooted in our genetic makeup. The argument emphasizes that while social norms may vary, the underlying genetic framework shapes our moral perceptions and responses. Ultimately, it posits that morality is not entirely subjective but is informed by our evolutionary history as social animals.

Jun 20, 2004

Nicomachus

The categorical imperative has been shown to be faulty. If you want to deny contextualism then that is fine but if you assert that my acceptance of contextualism is "stupid" when you accept contextualism then I will call you ridiculous. Shadowman simply demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about and I simply educated him. But yes, if you want to deny contextualism then that is fine, but do not use the Stolen Concept Fallacy or I will think you ridiculous, though I think it is ridiculous to deny contextualism.

As a side note; I see no moral relativist has attempted to rebutt my criticism.
*Nico

Last edited: Jun 20, 2004