No one believes this, that I know of. My point is that the horrific beliefs that I described are the end result of moral relativism. I have never met someone who would embrace the ideas I posed however. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

But if no one believes in this purely hypothetical "moral relativism," then (I keep coming back to this question) what is the point of railing against it? It seems that the real objective is a bait-and-switch. To wit:

My intent with this argument was to point out that because moral relativism claims morality as an invention of humanity, almost no human, at least that I know of, would be ok with the morality that moral relativism represents. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

The thesis that morality is the invention of humanity is not tantamount to the preposterous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." At least you haven't made that argument, you merely insinuated it.

This is an excerpt from another writing I did — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

PS-I understand that you are not claiming that morality is just a method for the weak to hold back the strong, but I hope this example illustrates my point. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Well, it illustrates some point, just not the one that you set out to prove. It is directed against moral nihilism, rather than the modest and morally-neutral thesis that morality is a human artefact.

However through study and discovery we, together, can be right about morality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

How do you figure that? I think what societies develop is a shared response of prohibitions and interdictions (the law) for the nominal sake of preserving the society. People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc).

I may be mistaken but I don't believe that human sacrifices were ever done because they thought that human sacrifice in and of itself was a good thing. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

The idea of the good may not resonate with a culture that bases ethics on that which pleases the gods. Good being whatever pleases God. There are many Christians today who hold this view - divine command theory.

My argument is that if you say that there is no morality then moral progress would stop. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same.

Where do these cultural standards come from? From what I can see cultural standards are derived from absolutes. It is merely that one culture values on standard above the other. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

I think the central point of your argument is held in that sentence - a form of moral idealism. Kant being a famous exemplar of this view. And here I don't think you have yet produced a compelling argument. As we have seen morals are utterly different around the world. Killing, for instance, means different things in different cultures - some taboo, some not. Your job would be to demonstrate somehow that moral truths exists independently of custom and culture. Are you saying that true morality exists outside us somehow as separate from human nature - our job being to uncover it?

You're misusing terms. What you're calling 'moral relativism' seems actually to be 'moral nihilism' a.k.a. 'moral error theory'.

I am a moral relativist. Moral relativism is the view that the truth of a moral proposition can vary according to place and time, other things being equal. So, 'Xing in circumstances S is wrong' might be true today, but false tomorrow.

Moral relativism is not, then, equivalent to moral nihilism. The two are consistent - one can be a moral relativist 'and' a moral nihilist. But one can be a moral realist - such as myself - and a moral relativist.

Moral relativism is also often confused/conflated with moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism is the view that moral norms and values are reducible to the norms and values of a person or persons. It would seem to entail moral relativism, but moral relativism doesn't entail it.

Anyway, I'm a moral relativist and a moral realist and a moral subjectivist. So I agree that moral nihilism is false. However, your case against it seems to be just that no one actually believes it. That, to my mind, doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that it is false. I think it is false, I stress. But I think it is false because it appears to be and becuase any attempt to defend it will be self-refuting.

As for moral relativism: well that appears to be true as well. People at some times seem to have gotten the impression that Xing in circumstances S was wrong, whereas people at other times seem to have gotten the impression Xing in circumstances S was right. That's default good evidence that Xing in those circumstances was wrong at one time, and right at another.

You seem to be equating moral absolutism with moral inflexibility. Moral absolutism does not make the claim that our current understanding of morality is true, merely that moral truth exists, whether we know it or not. Moral relativism claims that there is no moral truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral Absolutism claims that an understanding of morality can be factually correct. If I determine methods for proving the correctness of moral positions and use those methods to verify the correctness of my moral positions then the problems I have laid out follow. Flexibility has never followed and why would it? Why would a fact be flexible?

To this I would offer this CS Lewis quote.

Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their natural support. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral absolutism, however, claims that there is a moral law that all must follow, no matter whether they are a king, an activist group, or even a god. Absolute morality frees us from the yoke of the oppressor. We now have grounds to fight him. No matter how powerful a man gets there is always something more powerful which we can cling to and fight from. We can rally people who are being oppressed or mistreated, but how do we rally people if oppression and mistreatment do not actually exist? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. That's why I cannot agree with your argument. Moral relativism is relatively new in comparison and its impact on bringing about equality and fairness has been significantly better. I understand your concern, you want to hold people accountable but moral relativism does a much better job of that than absolutism. In most ways, relativism and absolutism function the same, the outside circumstances still shape our moral views the same. However, under relativism, a bad person is stripped of their moral authority, a good argument stands a better chance.

What you say is true but under moral relativism what ground do you have to condemn the actions of, say, the Pharaohs who used slaves to build monuments to themselves? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral views are everchanging, this change cannot be controlled but the views of the time are still embedded into the people of that time. Today, many relativists follow humanism which emphasises the value and freedom of people, for the sake of human dignity and equality, to create a more fair and caring world. There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror, we're not seeing parades of moral relativists saying "leave these people alone, they're doing nothing wrong, it's just our Western perspective". That's just not how morality works.

The only recourse I can see is for them to prove — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

The only recourse is to prove something under moral absolutism which has either made up rules or theological rules for how something is proven? Come on.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most tolerant of homosexuals are the most relativistic and the least tolerant are the most absolutist. Relativism just fosters a live and let live attitude, because you have to accept that people who live and think differently from you can be totally valid. So if they're not causing anyone any harm, then why not just let them do whatever. Again, that's not theory, we can just compare the US with Western Europe and get a clear picture of that.

1. Why does it matter that we discuss morality fairly?
2. What do you mean by harmful? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Because when moral views serve one group at the expense of another, it allows people to justify oppression. Technically, I could just think we should do whatever is best for me but I recognise that it's much better for me if we all do what is best for all of us, rather than all of us doing what is just best for ourselves. We want to have a system that works for everyone because that's how we protect ourselves and the people we care about. We also want that because of ideas like humanism and the emotional and psychological sensibilities developed by the circumstances of our time and our biological circumstances. Harmful is complicated but generally, I mean views that allow or call for the oppression or harm of people who are not themselves oppressing or harming anyone.

You all seem to be arguing the same point. Ironically I am in agreement with you guys on every point except the source of morality. Since your replies are all so closely related I will try to answer all your arguments here. First of all I want to say that all of you assume that a belief in moral absolutes requires an inflexibility in moral beliefs. This is not the case I admit that many people have used moral absolutes in order to oppress but the same can be said of moral relativism.

If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable. -Benito Mussolini

The thesis that morality is the invention of humanity is not tantamount to the preposterous beliefs that you attribute to "true moral relativists." At least you haven't made that argument, you merely insinuated it. — SophistiCat

It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. I also believe that although all of you are moral relativists by name, you are moral absolutists in practice. Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression and all of us believe, myself included, that oppression is bad. In fact each of us believes that oppression is always a bad thing. It is wrong regardless of the beliefs of the ruling class, regardless of the beliefs of the major religions, regardless of the beliefs of the individuals in the society. At all points throughout history, on all corners of the globe, and at any point in the future, oppression should be avoided. Why? Not because our current culture values lack of oppression, but because oppression is wrong as a matter of fact. If you still disagree with me answer this question. Is oppression ever right or commendable? if your answer to this question is no then I would assume that you believe it's antithesis, oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong.

But if no one believes in this purely hypothetical "moral relativism," then (I keep coming back to this question) what is the point of railing against it? It seems that the real objective is a bait-and-switch. — SophistiCat

A few of you have brought this point up, saying that I have not really offered a proof that moral relativism is wrong. You're right, I haven't. This is definitely something that I need to edit and rewrite in my paper. Thanks for the constructive criticism. My argument is, though, that if moral relativism is an invention of humanity, why does it seem so inhuman? And before you say that moral relativism is not the abandonment of morality but rather the recognition that one person or society cannot consider themselves correct about morality, keep in mind that I agree with the latter half of that sentence.

Think of it this way. Scientists all believe in scientific facts. However there are many disagreements on what those facts are. To give a softball example, a scientist believes that the earth is round, there are people, however, that claim the earth is flat. The scientist can use facts to prove that the earth is round because scientific truth exists. If scientific truth was merely an invention of humanity and it could vary from culture to culture, how could one argue that the flat earther is wrong? In the same way we cannot argue moral truth, such as: oppression is wrong, if there was no moral facts.

People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc). — Tom Storm

The fact that people in our current society or in past societies have disagreed on what is right and wrong does not matter in the slightest toward disproving moral absolutism.

I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. Take gay marriage for example, it seems to me from your other arguments that you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong. If this is the case, then do you believe that there ever was or ever will be a time where restricting gay marriage is correct? If not it is because you believe that restricting gay marriage is wrong always, no matter what, regardless of the views of the society or the time period or location on the globe. If all of my assumptions about your beliefs are true, correct me if they are not, then do you see how this is a moral absolute?

If someone disagreed with your view how would you argue with them? You would likely say (sorry for assuming again) something to the nature of, it makes them happy and it doesn't hurt anyone so there is no reason to restrict it. Inherent in this argument is the belief that denying someone the right to marry merely because their religion forbids it, is absolutely morally wrong, always, no matter what. How ever you could not make that claim if their were no moral facts.

People at some times seem to have gotten the impression that Xing in circumstances S was wrong, whereas people at other times seem to have gotten the impression Xing in circumstances S was right. — Bartricks

My question would be why was Xing wrong at some point but not at others? To make it easier to understand let's use a tangible example, killing. If I were to kill you for no reason I would be in the wrong. However if I discovered that you were going to murder thirty people and the only way to stop you was to kill you, then one could argue that not killing you was wrong. You might be saying that this is because morality is relative, that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. Note also that while I would claim that killing a man to stop him from killing several is the right thing to do pacifists may say that it is still morally wrong. Despite our disagreement we are both appealing to the absolute of, human life should be valued and protected. The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist.

Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. — Judaka

So has moral relativism, see the Mussolini quote above. Also remember that your belief that tyranny always has been and always will be wrong, is itself an absolute moral statement.

I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism.

My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same. — Tom Storm

We may never discover the origin of life, but that doesn't mean that we should stop studying it. However if we were to say there is no origin of life then why study it? Why make arguments for what is most likely true?

You could make the argument that we never will know the answer to these moral truths and thus we shouldn't ever believe we are absolutely morally right, I would disagree. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. Now logic is also the hardest form of truth to prove and as a result we should be open to all criticisms of our logic. But I'd like to point out that when you disagree with my logic you are disagreeing with the logical conclusion I have come to because you do not believe it to be the truth, not because you don't believe truth to be a thing.

Morality is the only discipline in which disagreements about the facts are attributed to their nonexistence. Most of science is built on theory and many of these theories are impossible to prove, evolution for example. However we take these to be true because they are the most logically probable. Now before you point out that natural sciences uses physical evidence where morality cannot, remember that mathematics is a purely logical discipline. And while we can see obviously the truth of 1+1=2, there are disagreements among mathematicians in higher math. Yet no one is claiming there is no mathematical truth. In fact I would argue that seeing that mathematics is fact and morality is fact can be done in the same way.

There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror — Judaka

The "obviousness" referred to in this statement is much like the obviousness of 1+1=2. Because ideas like terrorism is wrong are obviously true we can see that truth does exist morally speaking. Just as we see that mathematical truth does exist through the obvious equations.

The fact that all of us agree that societies should behave in certain ways regardless of the time, place, and attitude of said society makes moral absolutism the most logical choice. Thus it should be accepted as truth.

I would assume that you believe there is a correct answer to the laws you mentioned. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

No I don't. And so far you have not justified this claim. You haven't been able to address the arguments against your view and keep getting caught in a loop.

Each of you seems to be arguing that moral absolutism is bad because it promotes oppression — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

That is certainly not my position.

The fact that we disagree on what this absolute value implies does not mean that the absolute does not exist. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

No one disagrees with this point. But you fail to get the the next stage of your argument. Which is
making the case that there is absolute morality.

. It is my belief that logic is the highest form of truth and thus our logical conclusions should be trusted. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Apart from the wonky syllogism earlier, you haven't been using logic in this argument as yet so this is not really apropos.

If I were to kill you for no reason I would be in the wrong. However if I discovered that you were going to murder thirty people and the only way to stop you was to kill you, then one could argue that not killing you was wrong. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Wrong. Kant would disagree with you for a start, as would many moral philosophers. As the well worn saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Apart from the wonky syllogism earlier, you haven't been using logic in this argument as yet so this is not really apropos. — Tom Storm

Perhaps I should use the word reason then. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with proper philosophy.

Wrong. Kant would disagree with you for a start, as would many moral philosophers. As the well worn saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. — Tom Storm

Correct but both Kant and I would be arguing what the absolute moral good in this scenario would be, and both of us would be appealing to the value of human life. In fact all arguments made on this scenario would be appealing to the same absolute.

No one disagrees with this point. But you fail to get the the next stage of your argument. Which is
making the case that there is absolute morality — Tom Storm

The fact that the above scenario cannot be debated without both sides appealing to an absolute makes it more reasonable than not to assume that moral absolutes exist. If you disagree please explain to me how a person can argue a moral dilemma without appealing to some absolute.

Now you may be saying that "more reasonable than not" is not proof, and you would right. Perhaps we would have more luck if you tried to prove moral relativism.

That is certainly not my position. — Tom Storm

What is your position? Why are you arguing against moral absolutism?

that's why killing is wrong in one instance and right in the other, however you have to answer the question: Why is this the case? It is the case because human life is valuable and should always, no matter what be protected. Again an absolute belief in moral truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

By the way, this point undermines your position. You are not talking about absolute moral truths, you are talking about a flexible calculation based on some principles you hold. This is situational ethics - very different.

Correct but both Kant and I would be arguing what the absolute moral good in this scenario would be, and both of us would be appealing to the value of human life. In fact all arguments made on this scenario would be appealing to the same absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics.

appealing to the same absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

You are confusing principle with objectivity. This is not case of the 'same absolute' it is a case of people building ethics based on different principles.

If I were to say all my ethics are based on notions of 'highest truth' you can argue that is objective but all this actually is is a phrase open to interpretation. My highest truth may be different to someone else's. You need an identified foundation point outside of human experience. This is why people appeal to God.

But the absolute of the value of human life is not flexible.

Wrong. Kant would argue that killing in any situation is wrong. You are arguing for subjective ethics. — Tom Storm

I am arguing for lack of a better term, flexible killing. Kant believes killing is always wrong I believe it is sometimes not. However both Kant and I are appealing to the absolute that human life should be protected.

It is my belief that the "preposterous beliefs" are the end result of moral relativism. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

That's nice, but for this to be of interest to anyone other than you, you need to present a coherent argument against moral relativism. And before that, you need to tell us what it is that you mean by "moral relativism" and why it matters. Instead, you have this vague label that you associate with everything bad and wrong. Like Fascism! Everyone hates Fascists, right? And that's what moral relativism leads to! - Wait, what? What did you say "moral relativism" was again? Oh right, you didn't.

And prepending my quote with Mussolini's demagoguery, unsubtly implying that that is the position that I was defending (I wasn't even defending any position) is the last straw. You have lost any respect and good will that I have been giving you up to this point. Bye.

I am arguing for lack of a better term, flexible killing. Kant believes killing is always wrong I believe it is sometimes not. However both Kant and I are appealing to the absolute that human life should be protected. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Ok thanks for clearing this up. In other words you are a relativist. I thought that might be the case. I'll move on.

I want to say that I do not believe any of you to be anywhere close to fascists, but that is only because you believe, I'm assuming, that what Mussolini did was absolutely wrong. In other words there never has been and never will be an appropriate time for fascism. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Your quote was next to the Mussolini quote because the Mussolini quote ended my first point, (that moral absolutism is not the only cause of oppression) and your quote started my next, in fact the only reason I quoted you was just to let you know what point of yours I was responding to. I did not mean to imply that you were a fascist anymore than you meant to imply I was an intolerant dictator for arguing moral absolutism.

What did you say "moral relativism" was again? Oh right, you didn't. — SophistiCat

I have also said multiple times that I believe moral relativism to be the idea that moral truth's do not exist.

Can you please respond to the part about appealing tot the absolute of the value of human life?

We do not ordinarily argue that 2+2=4. But when it comes to questions of morality there is a great deal of disagreement. So by what argument do you demonstrate that certain moral claims are apodictically true and others false? By what reason or logic can you show that abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and stem cell research are either right or wrong, good or bad so that everyone will see that this is the case as with 2+2 and thus put an end to all such disagreement?

I do not understand your objection to my objection.

I understand moral absolutism to be the view that moral truths are fixed across time and space. So, if Xing in circumstances S is wrong, then it is always and everywhere wrong to X in circumstances S.

I understand moral relativism to be the denial of moral absolutism, and thus to be the view that though Xing in circumstances S may be wrong here and now, this does not entail that it was always and everywhere wrong.

Here is my argument for moral relativism:

1. If disinterested moral observers from time t1 get the impression Xing in circumstances S is wrong, and distinterested moral observers from time t2 get the impression that Xing in circumstances S is right (P), then other things being equal this is prima facie evidence that Xing in circumstances S was wrong at time t1 and right at time t2 (Q).
2. P
3. therefore Q

What you have done in your reply is simply note that while Xing in circumstances S may be wrong, Xing in circumstances T may be right. True, but irrelevant.

oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

It is essential to realise that "oppression" is not always referring to the same thing. If person A and person B agree oppression is wrong but person A considers X oppression and person B does not then person A and B's views about oppression are not the same. Even if person A & B agree X is oppression, they could disagree on many particulars, these disagreements aren't necessarily insignificant, that's a big part of what makes morality complicated.

Why is oppression seen as universally bad? One explanation is that oppression is an inherently critical description. Even if the oppressing party actually used the term oppression they would also believe that the circumstances call or allow for it and it is justified.

The definition of oppression according to dictionary.cambridge.org

"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom"

Keywords are "unfair" and "cruel", oppression cannot be the correct term to describe something fair and reasonable which it usually is from the perspective of those who do the oppressing.

Definition of tyranny by dictionary.cambridge.com

"government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly"

No reasonable definition of tyranny will make it sound like it could possibly be a compliment. The definition of the word makes it so that everyone must see tyranny negatively because tyranny is used to disapprove. If you called Mussolini a tyrant, a pro-Mussolini fascist would either disagree that he was tyrannical or he would argue that the tyranny was net beneficial and justified, likely tweaking the definition a bit.

Essentially every culture has valued loyalty, integrity, strength, fairness, respect, honesty and more. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

But is it culture that is responsible for these values or human psychology? Dogs care about fairness and they recognise who is the pack leader. They show loyalty and respect to the pack leader. They dislike it when you take things from them and like it when they are given food or toys. They can be taught what behaviour is good and what is bad. They know when is dinner or walk time and expect that consistency. Basically, while dogs are not humans, it's not as though culture has created the importance of values like fairness, fairness is a part of our culture because humans value fairness as a result of their psychology.

Is the dog onto something or have we just evolved in a similar way to dogs? The latter and the biases of our brains should be addressed as biases and not some mysterious interaction between factual morality and our psychological, hormonal and emotional development. Just as what I find attractive or tasty shouldn't be viewed as objectively attractive or tasty.

A decent way to wrap your head around how morality works is to think about what a dog might do. If I have two dogs and I give one dog all the affection and food and the other dog gets jealous or growls and gets angry, yeah, that's pretty much what most children would do as well. If someone were to beat and kick their dog and treated them cruelly, it's going to be hostile towards them, growling and baring their teeth at them, right? Humans will develop the same contempt.

Humans have empathy, where even if you just watched someone kicking their dog, you would be able to put yourself in the dog's position and feel for the dog. That's what separates humans from other animals, the injustice doesn't have to happen to you for you to get angry about it. Now that's almost exactly how morality operates and it's a strong feeling. People may not get merely mildly angry about something like that. They are capable of feeling for the dog's situation so strongly that they could desire to take literal, violent revenge on the dog's behalf, they may actually cry because they find it so sad and awful. I could give examples but I assume you've already seen things like this.

Why is murder wrong? If I watch a video of a parent crying for their deceased child, I, without intent, will likely feel sad or angry on their behalf, that's just the natural consequence of empathy. People don't need a fancy articulation of what makes murder wrong, they just need to hear about how the deceased person had goals and dreams, they just need to see the grief of the relatives and they can feel intense hatred towards the murderer, a person they've never even met before. And because everyone in a community can empathise with the deceased and their loved ones, the murderer is condemned and ostracized by the entire community. Now for you, maybe you decide that murder is objectively wrong, it really doesn't change much.

Anything that you can reasonably be upset about if it happened to you, you can get upset about it when it happens to someone else because of empathy. Morality reinforces itself effortlessly in such circumstances and that's mostly what morality is but other areas of morality still have some other psychological basis that gives potency to any view on right or wrong.

The potency of moral views does not rely on absolutism, it doesn't come from thinking you're objectively correct. What makes murder upset people is not their contempt for a non-factual understanding of morality. People don't get upset because "murder is objectively wrong, you did a wrong thing, that's bad". They get upset due to the raw emotional experience caused by empathy, outraged by the consequences of the act, they'll viciously attack the character of the perpetrator and be appalled and saddened by what happened to the victim.

Do you disagree with that? Can you see how I think Mussolini is wrong because I feel angry for the people he killed, rather than because I'm upset he violated a moral absolute? Can you see that even though I don't think Mussolini violated a moral absolute, that it doesn't impact my anger about all the innocent people he murdered?

My point with this argument was to show that just because there were moral disagreements throughout time and cultures that did not signify moral relativity. My point does need some explanation though. I believe that moral truths are just as valid as mathematical truths. We know that there is mathematical truth because we can obviously see it in simple equations like 2+2=4. There are obvious moral truth's as well, i.e. genocide is wrong. If you don't agree that this is an obvious truth then you are faced with the task of explaining how genocide could someday be seen as good.

In higher mathematics, or theoretical mathematics there are disagreements on what the mathematical truth of the equation is. Despite the fact that math is a purely logical discipline, we know there is an answer to the equation because 2+2=4. We see that it is indeed possible to be right about mathematics. much in the same way an obvious moral truths such as genocide is always wrong or rape is always wrong, make it quite reasonable to assume there is an answer to the less obvious moral dilemmas like the ones you mentioned.

The only way to argue these moral dilemmas is to appeal to an unyielding moral absolute. Take abortion for example, the pro life advocate claims that abortion is wrong because murdering babies is always wrong, the pro choice advocate claims that abortion is morally permissible because pregnancy has an effect on a woman's body and they argue that a woman should have the choice whether or not they want endure those effects. Although the two sides disagree on the final conclusion they both agree on the absolutes they are arguing for. A pro choice advocate is not claiming that women should have the right to murder babies, they advocate for abortion because they do not believe it to be murder. They would fully agree with the pro life advocate when he says that murdering an innocent baby is wrong. Just as the pro life advocate would agree with the pro choice advocate when he argues that women should have rights. Look at it through this hypothetical.

1. murdering babies is wrong
2. abortion is murdering babies
3. therefore abortion should be stopped.

Pro choice advocates disagree with 3 because they disagree with 2. They would, however, agree with 1. So the argument becomes is abortion murder? Because if it is then even the pro choice advocate would say it should be stopped. Why? Because they understand that the murder of innocent babies is absolutely wrong.

The two sides are tasked now with arguing things like the scientific idea of what constitutes a living being, or philosophical arguments about body and soul. Some have even used moral arguments such as it is wrong for us to decide a child's fate for him, or it is wrong for us to decide a woman's fate for her. These arguments can be made because the moral absolutes of killing babies is wrong, and women should have rights is understood, and take for granted by those arguing.

What you have done in your reply is simply note that while Xing in circumstances S may be wrong, Xing in circumstances T may be right. True, but irrelevant. — Bartricks

You are right. I misunderstood I will try to answer your actual argument.

You are arguing that we have no reason to believe that morality exists separate of humanity. I say that it is a reasonably sound argument to say that it does. We speak of our moral discoveries as just that. We discover what is right, we do not create it. American’s owned slaves until the late 19th century, yet we didn’t claim, “Not having slaves worked really well for England so we should try that.”. In fact slavery was surely very prosperous for the slave owner and the economy that housed them. We discovered that slavery was evil and should be stopped no matter the cost to cotton farmers. And it wasn’t that slavery was once great and became evil, it was always evil. We may have convinced ourselves otherwise at one point but we convinced ourselves of a lie. We have to concede then, that this good of not enslaving people, existed before we realized it was good. Slavery was evil before anyone ever owned slaves, slavery will continue to be evil even if we someday eradicate it from the world.

Consider this hypothetical. Let's say that the earth was completely destroyed, the only survivors being a male and female baby rocketed like superman, to another planet. Unlike superman no record of the human race or human history was sent with the rocket. The two repopulate this new planet with no knowledge of previous cultures. The males in the first society decide to take the females as slaves.

In this scenario the males would be morally wrong for taking slaves. They would not be wrong because their previous society deemed it to be wrong they would be wrong because slavery is always wrong regardless of the time place or attitude of the society. It does not matter that the males believed they were doing the right thing. They might even have a very good reason for enslaving the women. They could reason that they need to procreate in order to survive and if the women could not refuse them then they have a better chance of procreating. They would be arguing that the good of survival out weighs the good of freedom. I think that both of us would disagree with their conclusion.

Note too that in order to reason that their enslavement was morally permissible they would have to appeal to the understood preexisting idea that human survival was good.

So to put it in a syllogism

1. Slavery was wrong before humans decided it was wrong.
2. humans cannot decide something before they decide it
3. therefore humans did not decide that slavery was wrong.

You did not answer the question:

So by what argument do you demonstrate that certain moral claims are apodictically true and others false? — Fooloso4

If you cannot demonstrate this you cannot refute moral relativism.

The only way to argue these moral dilemmas is to appeal to an unyielding moral absolute. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Our agreement that killing innocent babies is wrong or genocide is wrong is not an appeal to a moral absolute, it merely indicates that we are in agreement on these issues. Our agreement does not yield an absolute answer to the disagreement on abortion. The failure to provide an absolute answer means that all we have to go on are relative answers that cannot be agreed on.

Can you see how I think Mussolini is wrong because I feel angry for the people he killed, rather than because I'm upset he violated a moral absolute? Can you see that even though I don't think Mussolini violated a moral absolute, that it doesn't impact my anger about all the innocent people he murdered? — Judaka

You make a good point but if Mussolini did not violate a moral absolute then your anger at his actions is equally morally valuable to his anger that he was opposed. Both of you are angry over a perceived injustice. He was, in his mind, trying to make a better world for Italy. You say he was wrong because he needlessly hurt people. What makes you right and him wrong is the moral absolute he violated.

I can see how someone can be upset by someone else's actions without appealing to a moral absolute. What I do not see is why it matters that someone is upset without moral absolutes. In all of your examples it is inherently understood by the empathizer that causing someone unnecessary pain is bad. If what Mussolini did was only wrong because people didn't like it then why should he stop doing what he is doing? Is it because more people were hurt by his actions than helped? Why should that matter? If it's not an absolute that hurting more people than you help is bad, then why should he ever stop hurting people?

By what basis do you condemn Mussolini if it is not a moral basis?

Can you make an argument for why fascism is bad without appealing to preexisting moral ideas?

Just because we don't know the answer to is abortion wrong does not mean there is no answer. Can you apodictically prove that evolution is true? or plate tectonics? or Pangaea? or that space is endless? Yet you accept that these are true because they are the most probable explanation. Also apodictic is defined as clearly established or beyond dispute by the dictionary.

Can you make an argument for a scenario in which genocide is a good thing? If not then isn't the idea "genocide is wrong" beyond dispute. Thus making it apodictically true?

Here is what it seems your argument for morality is, please correct me where I am wrong.

1. Moraltiy is merely the invention of the human mind
2. Things that are invention of the human mind do not exist in reality.
3. Therefore morality does not exist in reality.

Except for the fact that you have not proven 1 to be true, this seems like solid logic. Where I get confused is how you get from "morality does not exist in reality" to you should not kill babies.

Can you please explain how we should always do the moral thing if there is no such thing as a moral thing?

Just because we don't know the answer to is abortion wrong does not mean there is no answer. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Not only do we not know the answer we do not even know if there is an answer. In either case, if we do not know the answer then whatever position we take is relative not absolute. Once again you have not refuted relativism you have confirmed it.

Yet you accept that these are true because they are the most probable explanation. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

I think you are becoming confused about what side you are on. Absolute and most probable are not the same.

Also apodictic is defined as clearly established or beyond dispute by the dictionary. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Yes, and since moral claims are not clearly established or beyond dispute they are not apodictic, that is, necessarily true or logically certain. In other words, the are not absolutes.

Can you make an argument for a scenario in which genocide is a good thing? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Yes, but not one that I would find persuasive.

2. Things that are invention of the human mind do not exist in reality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Look around you. There are many things that are inventions of the human mind. We are communicating on one right now.

3. Therefore morality does not exist in reality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Morality does exist in reality. We deal with moral issues every day. What neither you nor anyone else has been able to establish is the reality of a transcendent realm of timeless, changeless, universal moral truths.

Except for the fact that you have not proven 1 to be true, this seems like solid logic. Where I get confused is how you get from "morality does not exist in reality" to you should not kill babies. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

First of all, I did not say that morality does not exist. Second, it is not a question of whether babies should be killed but of whether it is ever justified. There are serious medical conditions that are irreversible and lead to a life of continuous extreme pain and suffering. In my opinion, it would be immoral to allow such a life to continue. Third, I make a distinction between an embryo, early stage fetus, and a baby.

Can you please explain how we should always do the moral thing if there is no such thing as a moral thing? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

This depends on what you mean by "moral thing". If one holds the moral thing to be that thing that they regard as right or good, then there is no problem; one does what they regard as proper. You seem to mean that thing that is good or right without regard to whether anyone knows or accepts it as such. In that case we may not be doing the moral thing even if we are absolute in our conviction that we are.

My questions to moral absolutists or moral objectivists...
Do you believe some values are subjective and some objective? Eg. Which flavor of ice cream is the best? Is that subjective?
If you agree it is, I ask what makes moral values more objective than amoral values of taste?
Without someone there to form an opinion or make a value judgement of good or bad...where is the goodness or badness itself, outside of a judge? Don't all values require a person to form them?

Consider a leopard eating a family of young innocent bunnies?
Presumably the bunnies and their mother would judge the act as horrible. And presumably the leopard would consider it good.
Where is the goodness's or badness independent of the opinions of the animals?
Animals presumably are amoral?

What makes human acts objectively moral or amoral?

Personally I'm fairly convinced karma exists, and so I consider acts that cause unnecessary pain to others as acts which will cause me pain in the future, so I refrain. My sense of community and empathy also play a factor in my decisions. Harming others causes me guilt and shame, or hardens my heart making me less able to enjoy emotions and connections with others.
I believe there are some objective consequences on oneself and others by acts. But calling them moral or amoral because of the pleasant or unpleasant consequences seems like an unnecessary conceptual addition...which adds painful consequences.

Consider. If you don't like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pain. So don't eat it. That's enough to say right? We don't need to say one shouldn't eat it. Should is extra baggage.
Likewise, it's not necessary to cause others pain. And causing others pain will not be good for your own sense of self worth, or for your reputation. And why harm your own community? You will feel good about yourself and people will like you more if you treat others from a place of empathy.
Where is the need to add should or should not?

If someone told Mussolini murder was objectively wrong, would he not laugh in their face? You brought up Mussolini to give an example of a moral relativist who oppressed others but moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. Don't you think you're basically suggesting that morality should do something that we know it's incapable of doing? As I said earlier if you call say honesty is a moral absolute and I choose to lie, your "absolute" does nothing, my lie's consequences will be independent of that evaluation.

Morality has power when it's written into law, when it is part of the culture and when it's engrained into peoples' minds. Without those things, morality is nothing, just words and ideas. Fascism is only bad because it tramples on things I value but the value I see in those things is indeed subjective, I accept that.

The empathiser does not inherently understand pain is bad, they feel the pain and the pain makes them emotional. Things which cause pain may be "bad" but what is "bad"? It just reflects the emotional or intellectual rejection of that thing in a (generally) specified context by the person using the label.

You are right. I misunderstood I will try to answer your actual argument. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

It seems to me that you still are. Here is my argument:

1. If disinterested moral observers from time t1 get the impression Xing in circumstances S is wrong, and distinterested moral observers from time t2 get the impression that Xing in circumstances S is right (P), then other things being equal this is prima facie evidence that Xing in circumstances S was wrong at time t1 and right at time t2 (Q).
2. P
3. therefore Q — Bartricks

You need to deny a premise. You haven't done that. Rather you say this:

You are arguing that we have no reason to believe that morality exists separate of humanity. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Clearly that is not what I am arguing at all. No premise of my argument asserts such a thing. So you're just attacking a straw man.

I believe the truth of a moral proposition is not constitutively determined by any human attitudes.

You are confusing moral relativism with human subjectivism about morality. These are completely different views.

The physical landscape is not made of human attitudes, is it? It exists objectively. Or at least, it exists outside of human minds. Yet it changes over time. And our evidence that it changes is that it appears to. I am making the same claim about morality. Just as the claim that the physical landscape changes over time is obviously not equivalent to the claim that the physical landscape exists in human minds alone or is a human construct, likewise for the parallel claim about morality.

You seem to mean that thing that is good or right without regard to whether anyone knows or accepts it as such. In that case we may not be doing the moral thing even if we are absolute in our conviction that we are. — Fooloso4

This is exactly my view. Do you disagree with this premise? Again if no one on Earth ever condemned genocide would it be the right thing to do?

Yes, but not one that I would find persuasive. — Fooloso4

Why would you not find it persuasive?

Not only do we not know the answer we do not even know if there is an answer. In either case, if we do not know the answer then whatever position we take is relative not absolute. Once again you have not refuted relativism you have confirmed it. — Fooloso4

We do not know and will never know what happened in history. That is to say that we don't know with absolute certainty. Historical facts are not actual facts, they are our most probable guess based on evidence. But just because we do not know and likely never will know does not mean the events of history did not actually happen. My point is that a lack of knowledge does not constitute a lack of fact.

Also you all seem to be ignoring the absolutes that we agree on. We argue one side or the other or say "this action is wrong because...". We do this because certain, basic, moral principles are understood universally, such as human life should be protected, or one should never cause another undue pain.

In the example you gave:

There are serious medical conditions that are irreversible and lead to a life of continuous extreme pain and suffering. In my opinion, it would be immoral to allow such a life to continue. — Fooloso4

You are arguing that ending suffering should be more valuable that preserving life, are you not? If this is the case where did your idea of this come from?

There are disagreements in every discipline known to man. But it seems that morality is the only discipline in which we take disagreements to mean there is no answer. Why should morality earn this distinction? Morality is studied, even by self proclaimed relativists, why would we do such a thing if there was no answer?

Also consider this if morality was invented by humanity how did we come to set a moral standard that is impossible for humans to reach?

Consider. If you don't like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pain. So don't eat it. That's enough to say right? We don't need to say one shouldn't eat it. Should is extra baggage. — Yohan

I imagine then that the opposite of this is true: If you do like chocolate ice cream, then eating it may cause you pleasure, so eat it. Would you honestly feel comfortable giving this advice to someone if you replaced the words chocolate ice cream with rape?

Likewise, it's not necessary to cause others pain. And causing others pain will not be good for your own sense of self worth, or for your reputation. And why harm your own community? You will feel good about yourself and people will like you more if you treat others from a place of empathy.
Where is the need to add should or should not? — Yohan

What if a person does not want to have self worth or enjoys having a reputation as an evil person? What if they like that everyone fears and hates them? Are they free to murder and steal as long as they don't get caught? We have to add should or should not because, while you would not, I'm assuming, rape a person due to the negative consequences i.e. guilt and shame, there are those who either wouldn't mind the consequences or would enjoy them. They still shouldn't rape.

moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. — Judaka

You are correct but unless oppression is morally wrong, why does this matter?

Fascism is only bad because it tramples on things I value but the value I see in those things is indeed subjective, I accept that — Judaka

Do you believe that your moral views and the views of the fascist to have equal moral validity?

The empathiser does not inherently understand pain is bad, they feel the pain and the pain makes them emotional. Things which cause pain may be "bad" but what is "bad"? It just reflects the emotional or intellectual rejection of that thing in a (generally) specified context by the person using the label. — Judaka

If this is the only determining factor then what right do you have to condemn the actions of Mussolini?

Ok it seems as though we have almost the exact same view. My argument would just be that while the physical landscape changes, the physical makeup of said landscape is still the same. That which makes up morality does not change either. While the function and form of a thing may change depending on the circumstances, like water turning to ice when frozen, the thing itself is still made up of the same components. You seem to believe that moral absolutism is the view that water will always be water and never be ice. The view is merely that water, ice, and steam are all always H2O. The absolutist understands that circumstances can change morality. Kant may believe that lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstance, but I'm sure that he would not say the same of telling a joke. Yet I would imagine he would agree that knowingly telling a joke at an inappropriate time would be immoral. He is merely a stricter (I think that's a word) absolutist than I am. (this might not be true actually. The never lie maxim brings up the interesting discussion of moral responsibility, which I'd be willing to discuss but it is a bit off topic).

Would you agree that water, ice, and steam are all, always H20, metaphorically speaking? If so then we are in complete agreement on the basis of morality.