On Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

How does that translate into ethics?

The morals and ethics evolve as necessary for the survival of humanity through standards of behavior that ensure stability and cooperation between individuals and groups in a tribe. Pretty much all the major cultures of the world have similar morals and ethics, because of the objective reasons for their survival.

[Machinist]

Again and differences do not make it 'subjective.' Different countries and cultures can arrive at differences in laws be objective development of laws, which by the way are becoming more uniform world wide with time.


Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.[/QUOTE[

Yhe particular view points of the 'Rule of Law' have an objective basis, Again differences does not equate to being subjective.


OK. It still remains your subjective opinion argument is based on a religious agenda as cited without reference eo an independent reference. Kramer and others do not negate that there are subjective elements to the rule of law, they support that the rule of law has an objective foundation.

I would like to hear your definition and maybe a few examples of what moral relativism is.

If the objective foundations of law can shift with the wind, then what exactly is moral relativism?

[Machinist]

"Again differences does not equate to being subjective." - Shuny


No, differences do not equate to being subjective. What is subjective is anyone's guess as to which one is moral and which is immoral.

[seer]

Again and differences do not make it 'subjective.' Different countries and cultures can arrive at differences in laws be objective development of laws, which by the way are becoming more uniform world wide with time.

But that is moral relativism by definition. So you agree that laws are morally relative?

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

The particular view points of the 'Rule of Law' have an objective basis, Again differences does not equate to being subjective.

What is the OBJECTIVE basis for martial rape being illegal. Be specific please.

[seer]

The morals and ethics evolve as necessary for the survival of humanity through standards of behavior that ensure stability and cooperation between individuals and groups in a tribe. Pretty much all the major cultures of the world have similar morals and ethics, because of the objective reasons for their survival.

Why is our survival a moral good? Sure we subjectively want to survive, but that does not make it an objective moral good...

[shunyadragon]

Why is our survival a moral good? Sure we subjectively want to survive, but that does not make it an objective moral good...

Survival of the species, not the individual person is an natural objective good. Moral and ethics are the result the necessary social cohesion and cooperation for survival of the community.

[shunyadragon]

But that is moral relativism by definition. So you agree that laws are morally relative?

Differences DO NOT translate to moral relativism. ALL cultures and societies have basic morals and ethics necessary for the survival of the species.

What is the OBJECTIVE basis for martial rape being illegal. Be specific please.

Human Rights

[seer]

Survival of the species, not the individual person is an natural objective good. Moral and ethics are the result the necessary social cohesion and cooperation for survival of the community.

Was it an objective moral good for Dinosaurs to survive?

[shunyadragon]

Was it an objective moral good for Dinosaurs to survive?

No it was objective bad news for the dinosaurs.

[seer]

No it was objective bad news for the dinosaurs.

So using the word objective has no meaning...

[seer]

Differences DO NOT translate to moral relativism. ALL cultures and societies have basic morals and ethics necessary for the survival of the species.


Human Rights

But many countries don't have human rights. And that is moral relativism by definition.

[shunyadragon]

"Again differences does not equate to being subjective." - Shuny


No, differences do not equate to being subjective. What is subjective is anyone's guess as to which one is moral and which is immoral.

OK for the individual, but morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' are NOT based on 'anyone's guess' or individual personal opinion, Morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' over rule 'personal opinion and 'anyone's guess; and evolved based on 'objective needs of the survival of the human species. Objectively if we did not have morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' humans would not survive.

[seer]

OK for the individual, but morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' are NOT based on 'anyone's guess' or individual personal opinion, Morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' over rule 'personal opinion and 'anyone's guess; and evolved based on 'objective needs of the survival of the human species. Objectively if we did not have morals, ethics, and 'Rule of Law' humans would not survive.

But that does not tell us what is objectively right or wrong. Countries with martial rape or slavery survive just fine and have for centuries. China has no human rights and they are doing great...

[shunyadragon]

But that does not tell us what is objectively right or wrong. Countries with martial rape or slavery survive just fine and have for centuries. China has no human rights and they are doing great...

By definitions provided on Objectivism and Subjectivism your questions have been answered. Also as described in detail the Objectivity of morals, ethics and Rules of Law are necessary for the objective survival of the human species.

[shunyadragon]

But many countries don't have human rights. And that is moral relativism by definition.

No, it does not. Again differences does not negate the necessity of morals, ethics and the 'Rule of Law' for the survival of humanity. It just means that there are subjective attributes in morals, ethics, and the 'Rule of Law. Of course some don't have Human Rights or even 'Rule of Law,' but humanity objectively suffers when 'some' that do not. Reread the reference on Objectivism and Subjectivism, and note that there the Subjectivism of 'some' that based preference is not the dominant collective that the Objective Nature of the need of the survival morals, ethics and 'Rule of Law' is objectively necessary for the survival of humanity.