I, i hope obviously don't think so, but it is an option for others.

each as true, real, meaningful, correct, right. — Rank Amateur

The problem is that on the " The morality or immorality of slavery is an individual judgement" view, no moral stance is true, real (in the objective sense), or correct.

Moral stances are meaningful to their bearers, and "right," if we mean the moral sense (rather than simply a synonym for "correct"), is what the individual moral judgment is about to the bearer--"right conduct," it's someone saying that they feel that such and such is right conduct, basically.

Those latter two things have no implication for "needing to accept" anyone else's moral stance as anything but their moral stance, a la "It's a fact that John has M moral stance."

But it does not follow from this that disparate moral judgements are all seen, in any sense, as 'equally valid' by any single individual. — ChrisH

it is just one to the other -

i can't actually see how your caveat above is even possible - it would mean an individual would say the abolitionist and the slave holder have equal valid views according to his judgement -

well maybe possible - but he is an idiot then and his view is meaningless

thanks - understand the view - and what i see that option as. I would just disagree - I would say it is objectively true that slavery is morally bad.

assume with your world view, you have no need to accept or reject my view. It is just a fact that Rank Amateur has that moral stance.

So here are the available moral options as I see them for this actual situation.

1. Both truth and morality are culturally relative:

The slave holders have the majority cultural belief and therefore their moral view that slavery is not immoral is the correct moral view, and then the same people held the incorrect immoral view when the majority of the culture changed

The abolitionists while not the cultural majority at this time, had the incorrect moral view that slavery was immoral, until the cultural majority view changed, and then they had the correct moral view. — Rank Amateur

And what about correct and incorrect? Is that relative, subjective, objective, absolute? That's important. What exactly are you trying to do here? As a build up to some sort of criticism, this just won't work if you merely assume that correct and incorrect are objective and/or absolute. You'd have to actually first demonstrate that.

You do realise that some people will only commit to correct or incorrect in a relative sense here? So it won't simply be correct. It will be correct for them, and incorrect for others.

4. The morality or immorality of slavery is an individual judgement.

All of us just make our own judgement - each as valid as the other and it's right or wrong in a relative sense, and some judgements are better or worse than others in a relative sense also. — Rank Amateur

I fixed your error for you. You're welcome.

"Valid" in what sense, and from whose perspective? — ChrisH

Yeah, I've asked him that a few times, but we haven't managed to explore it at all yet. — Terrapin Station

Tell me about it! How many times do you think that it is going to take? When is it an appropriate time to give up? You can't say that we haven't tried.

Thanks, more interested in which view you support.

Thanks, more interested in which view you support. — Rank Amateur

Cultural relativism, properly understood, and moral relativism, properly understood.

By cultural relativism, I can say that it's wrong to clink your glasses in a "cheers!" in Budapest, as I recently learnt, but it is fine here in England.

By moral relativism, I can say that whatever I morally judge as right or wrong is right or wrong for me. If you judge it differently, then you're wrong relative to my standard. Obviously I prioritise my standard over yours, and over that of others. I judge mine to be better. This is what you fail to understand for whatever reason. You are just stuck on some erroneous belief that everything must be equal or something.

did cultural relativism as you understand it allow certain cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable ??

Answering this for myself: valid in the sense of being valid, and from the "perspective" of what being valid is and entails, i.e., the rules and their consequences. — tim wood

You're not understanding the question. Validity is a logical idea, and it obtains when it's impossible for a conclusion to be false and/or impossible for premises to be true.

We can't be referring to that sense here, because moral stances aren't true or false (at least on the view in question). Hence, what sense of validity are we talking about? It can't be the logical sense.

Re perspective, the reason for the question is that there is no person from whose perspective all moral stances are "equal." So we must be talking about the perspective of someone other than an individual considering moral stances. So what perspective are we talking about?

Did cultural relativism as you understand it allow certain cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable? — Rank Amateur

It is wrong to even use the word "allow" in that context. It doesn't "allow" or "disallow" anything. You appear to be deeply stuck in your own problematic way of looking at things. It is possible under cultural relativism for cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable, as it is possible under every single other meta-ethical position.

i can't actually see how your caveat above is even possible - it would mean an individual would say the abolitionist and the slave holder have equal valid views according to his judgement - — Rank Amateur

Sorry but could you explain the logic of how you get from what I said to "it would mean an individual would say..."

It is wrong to even use the word "allow" in that context. You appear to be deeply stuck in your own problematic way of looking at things. It is possible under cultural relativism for cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable, as it is possible under every single other meta-ethical position. — S

i am getting very tired of near every response on this board is becoming near pure semantics.

not sure I can. It is very evident i have no ability at all to communicate effectively. And it is not important to the point I started this with. It was an aside. Just say OK I agree with you.

are any of those moral options close to your view ?

I am getting very tired of near every response on this board is becoming near pure semantics. — Rank Amateur

You don't seem to realise the significance of your wording. Your wording reflects your way of thinking, and your way of thinking is problematic. Do you want to understand cultural relativism or not? If so, you need to stop thinking in these terms, terms like allowing and disallowing, equally valid, mere preference, and just different. These are your obstacles in understanding.

I just want you to answer a question.

I will try again see if this is better.

Can you tell me how your view of cultural relativism applies to slavery ?

↪ChrisH not sure I can. It is very evident i have no ability at all to communicate effectively. And it is not important to the point I started this with. It was an aside. — Rank Amateur

But it is important! Your comment ("it would mean...") suggests a profound misunderstanding of the position you have been taking issue with throughout this discussion.

I just want you to answer a question.

I will try again see if this is better.

Can you tell me how your view of cultural relativism applies to slavery? — Rank Amateur

Fine, but avoiding your problems won't help, and if you refuse to confront them, then you'll be stuck with them. Do you want to be stuck on the same problems twenty pages from now if this goes on for that long?

It is like how you described, only without the problems. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture, but you don't get to say anything about correct or incorrect without being clear about what sense of correct and incorrect you're talking about. Every time that you fail to clarify your meaning on things like that, you are being a problem for everyone else in the discussion. Do you want to be a problem for everyone else in the discussion?

Ambiguity is a problem.

But this is begging the question (it assumes as fact the very thing that's in dispute).

That "individual [moral] judgements" are the kinds of things that can be "true" or "correct" is what, I thought, was in question here. — ChrisH

Yep. You've hit the nail on the head.

It is like how you described, only without the problems. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture, but you don't get to say anything about correct or incorrect without being clear about what sense of correct and incorrect you're talking about. Every time that you fail to clarify your meaning on things like that, you are being a problem for everyone else in the discussion. — S

Ok - i admit i am missing it, but in the thought that is in my head there is absolutely nothing different between your use of right and my use of correct. They are semantically equal to me.

That being as it is. Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate reference.

In that case I just disagree, which is fine. My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect.

If you mean there's no non-subjective standard by which to assess disparate moral judgements, then yes, you're right. But it does not follow from this that disparate moral judgements are all seen, in any sense, as 'equally valid' by any single individual. — ChrisH

Multiple people have pointed this out, multiple times, and from very early on in the discussion. We're on page 27, and he is stuck on the same problem.

But it is important! Your comment ("it would mean...") suggests a profound misunderstanding of the position you have been taking issue with throughout this discussion. — ChrisH

Yes!!!

no it really is not - I am not making any argument so far either for or against any option, i just put them out as i understand them. I also gave an option of none of the above if i missed it or got it wrong.

I am interested in application of these stances against a real life issue.

So I ask you to pick one, or add your own and apply it to the issue of slavery.

did i understand you right - would you agree this is your position?

Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate cultural reference. — Rank Amateur

(note just added "cultural")

you didn't get back to me on this one yet.

Ok - i admit i am missing it, but in the thought that is in my head there is absolutely nothing different between your use of right and my use of correct. They are semantically equal to me.

That being as it is. Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate reference.

In that case I just disagree, which is fine. My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect. — Rank Amateur

My use of "right" was such that it was synonymous with "moral", not such that was synonymous with "correct".

And it isn't fine to just disagree. You should concede that your position is unreasonable. That it is dogmatic. And then we can be over and done with this.

Or alternatively, attempt to reasonably argue in support of it, but I predict that that will just lead to bad logic from you for someone like me to pick apart and expose.

And it isn't fine to just disagree. You should concede that your position is unreasonable. That it is dogmatic. And then we can be over and done with this. — S

No, i will not admit my use of correct vs your use of right makes my position unreasonable. Especially since i didn't take any position in the options. And gave you an non or the above option to describe it yourself.

Do you think perhaps your adamancy over the wrongness of slavery is because you’ve never had the first hand experience of knowing differently? If you cannot judge from the persective of the culture that condones it, what makes you say with authority that it is wrong? I agree slavery is wrong, but if I grew up a plantation owner’s son in Mississippi in 1845, I would hardly think that. Or a Greek captain of a warship in the Aegean, in pursuit of those pesky Trojans.

. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture — S

still want to get back to this. Your view is there is no truth statement we can make about the rightness of slavery without a cultural reference. Is this correct ?

did i understand you right - would you agree this is your position?

Your view is that there is no truth statement that we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate cultural reference.
— Rank Amateur
(note just added "cultural")

you didn't get back to me on this one yet. — Rank Amateur

No, because I'm ultimately an individualistic moral relativist. I only accept cultural relativism as just another way of pointing out moral relations. It is useful, and it reflects a sort of truth. But I don't actually depend on any cultural reference, because I can just say, for example, that murder is wrong relative to my judgement. That's about me and my judgement. No culture is referenced there.

Agree completely , the issue is, do you think that means, as S does, that there is no truth statement we can make about slavery without cultural context.

Turning this around, and using word. Cultural norms are always right, the subject of their judgments are variable.

And does that mean that it is objectively true, that the prevalent cultural norms, whatever they are, are by definition right?