Actually, moral relativism does say everyone is right. That’s the problem with it. Those of us who’ve studied philosophy and have built our own ethical systems are not “moral relativists.” There is also a false dichotomy between asserting that if one is not a moral relativist, one must be a moral absolutist. No, morality can be achieved through reason and does not depend on absolutes, though some maxims can be granted as universal (for instance, “undesired suffering is bad”). You do not understand what “moral relativism” means.

Essentially, if you assume that there are absolute morals, and then continue asking “why?”, your position will eventually fall apart due to reaching an invalid argument like “because I said so” or “because it’s written in the buybull” or something to that extent, making your entire argument subjective and, therefore, relative.

As to right to judge someone else’s moral system, that’s also entirely up to you. You can support or condemn some values, but in the end, that will be only your opinion. There are no “God-given inalienable rights” given to people other than those that people give to each other (or themselves).

This is, of course, only my opinion.

PS: of course, all of the above has shit to do with the shades of gray referred to in the comic; +1 to all those who stated the same.

“In the places in the world where female genital mutilation or the stoning of women for uncovering their faces are practiced, those acts are seen as justified by moral absolutes. ”

And outside of those places, the practice is justified by moral relativists who claim we can’t judge an action of another culture because it’s “ethnocentric” and cultures are “not better nor worse; just different.”

When this comic says “moral relativism,” they’re meaning “an understanding of ethics (the philosophical study of morality),” which sees things in shades of grey. Seeing things thusly is not the same thing as moral relativism.

It must be concluded that Richard Wade, Hemant and the comic’s artist either do not know what moral relativism means or do not understand it. I think a correction is warranted. Namely, that moral relativism is not the same thing as being ethically astute, and that a position of moral relativism would agree with the position of moral absolutism within the bounds of the culture or society that practices or tolerates it.

1) Person A says a certain act is always wrong

and

2) Person B says the same certain act is always right..

That…

It’s rational to say that at least one must be wrong, and…

It’s moral relativism to say they both can be right.

The cartoon above is ultimately worthless because it denigrates without enlightening; it slaps the moral absolutist across the face, points a finger in his face and yells, “You’re a moron! Ha ha! Everyone look, what a moron!” It accomplishes nothing.

Instead it should’ve at least tried to educate by showing that while moral relativism is often abhorrent, like moral absolutism, it is not always the ultimate evil. You can be both, about different things, at the same time.

point is, we don’t have to be on the defensive when religious people — absolutists by their admission — say that our morality is relative. of course it’s fucking relative, and in reality, so is theirs.

You seem to have missed the fact that relativism is a specific philosophical position. It is not simply seeing things in shades of gray. It might do you some good to see what it is.

What both Hemant and the comic are referring to isn’t relativism.

On a related note, I’d be interested to know where most atheists derive morality from.

For myself, my morality is grounded upon fairness and the right to self-autonomy. Everyone has an equal right to control of their own lives; if you restrict someone’s autonomy (through, say, murder) then you forfeit the right to your own.

As for why I ground my morality upon fairness: it’s ‘group selfishness’, rather. It is in the interest of an individual in a social species to live in a secure, fair society, and it is also in the interests of that society as a whole.

As for myself, I’d be interested to know where most theists derive morality from. They claim they derive it from their god, but until they prove that god exists, for obvious reasons, I am unable to accept that.

Actually, I think much of the argumentation about ‘morality’ comes from the theist’s claim that morality is somehow a special set of laws, floating out there in the ether. If you ignore that, morality just because a synonym for justice, charity, and other mutually beneficial acts. There are reasons we think the above are good things – morality is just the entire set of these ‘good’ things.

On the topic of morality, I do think many fundies would like everyone to believe that you’re either a moral relativist or a moral absolutist, with no other possibilities. I think that’s a false dichotomy, and I agree with much of what Camels With Hammers said in his long post.

I’m honestly not sure how to describe my moral values, except that they are neither absolutist nor relativist. Mine are something else, and generally I try to help others, partly because it makes me feel good, and partly because it makes them feel better as well. I’ve always liked the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated.

I was asking Hortensio about the difficulty of trying to persuade someone from doing what I think are objectionable things by taking a moral absolutist stance, when that person is also taking his own moral absolutist stance, but one that requires the actions that I find objectionable. I’m talking about one of the problems that moral absolutism poses. Nothing was implied about letting a little bit of this or that into anything.

I look at how things affect other people, if it helps them or hurts them, and that’s how I know if something is right or wrong. Sometimes, that’s not easy. And that’s ok. Sometimes we make mistakes, or lose track of the right priorities. Again. That’s ok. We just dust ourselves off, try to make amends for what we did, and move forward.