How are these silly concepts? Isn't it evil to trade slaves? Isn't it virtuous to help someone in need?

If there is no good or evil, no better or worse, then all laws should be abolished. I pity you and your moral relativism. Oh, wait, you apparently have no morals which can be compared relative to another's...

No evil?! Cool, I can go rape those 17 year old hotties against their will! My argument in court will be that "cteno4 says there is no such thing as evil"!

Are you proposing that there's no such thing as right and wrong, or merely that good and evil are the wrong terms?

^That's our Draugnar ladies!

What kind of idiot would say there is no such thing as good and evil? Are you insane?

If he is stupid enough to play semantics ("right and wrong" > "good and evil") then he's still an idiot.

And as for Draug, at least he's graduated from 15 year olds... :P Booooobies!!!

I think this thread is stupid. Are we really going to debate if there is good and evil? Really?

"If he is stupid enough to play semantics ("right and wrong" > "good and evil") then he's still an idiot."
I'm just trying to figure out whether we're dealing with a 20-year-old overly-linguistically-technical philosophy major or a 14-year-old who's been listening to too much Insane Clown Posse.

Also, since cteno4 doesn't believe in good and evil, am I the only one whose first instinct was to check his profile for evidence of mult-accounting?

Well he has a point. Or is everyone in this thread suggesting that morals are absolute? That different cultures may not consider different things moral and immoral?

"Well he has a point. Or is everyone in this thread suggesting that morals are absolute? That different cultures may not consider different things moral and immoral?"

Maybe I'm the one playing semantics now, but I think there's a difference between saying some elements of morality change over time and saying good and evil don't exist.

I'm just saying that these terms may be misleading since what I understood from cteno4's post is that he doesn't like the idea of good and evil presented as an absolute concepts. Saying slavery is evil might be correct from today's perspective, but wasn't considered as such during the Ancient Rome era. Similarily, some of the things we consider to be morally acceptable now, might be regarded as evil in the future.

Well, that's why I asked what exactly he's challenging. Good-evil has a religious absoluteness to it, whereas I think right-wrong connotes some more room for moral relativism.

Also, moral relativism isn't necessarily always about evolution over time. It can be situational. For example, killing is wrong, but many would argue that it's moral for the state to put someone to death as punishment for certain crimes. This position necessitates a certain amount of moral relativism. That's why I am hoping the OP will clarify his statement somewhat.

Moral relativism is about "Oh, I think abortion is wrong for me, but you go ahead and do it if you think it's right" Moral relativism is less about situational ethics as it is about people not having the balls to stand on principled belief and actually suggest others should consider your belief as correct.

It depends on how relative you are.

Situational ethics are one type of moral relativism. Another is what you've described, the concept that an action is only wrong if the performer of the action believes it to be wrong. I had a philosophy professor once who described this as "absolute relativism," one of my all-time favorite oxymorons.

"Absolute relativism" leads to some uncomfortable conclusions that I find morally objectionable as well as logically untenable.

"Oh, I think abortion is wrong for me, but you go ahead and do it if you think it's right"
That's basically just confirming that good and evil aren't absolute terms, no? While you may believe that abortion is evil, someone might consider it good. I might have also misunderstood your post and if so, I apologize.

I think you did misunderstand his post. I believe Krellin was citing the sentiment you quoted as an example of the faulty reasoning that he believes underlies extreme moral relativism.

Oh. But still, I can see abortions as a good example of moral relativism. Both sides have good arguments and both believe the other side is wrong. Who's to say that abortions are objectively moral or immoral?

"Who's to say that abortions are objectively moral or immoral?"

Krellin is to say.

That's subjective, not objective.

Ugh...it was a fucking example, not an opening to debate abortion.

IF someone says "I believe abortion is morally wrong for ME....but if you want to have one go ahead"
THEN they are practicing moral relativism.

Good god, you people never miss and opportunity to miss a point, do you?

I DID NOT say abortion is right or wrong, it was AN EXAMPLE that is OFTEN heard in society. ("You illiterates..." he ads with disdain...)

Oh, calm down, Krellin. "Krellin is to say" was a joke.

And in fairness, I *did* point out what Fairfax had missed.

Abortion is killing. plain and simple.

At FARIFAX: "Both sides have good arguments and both believe the other side is wrong..

You dont' understand moral relativism. It is the principle of AN INDIVIDUAL not applying their moral beliefs as a principle for all to adhere to. It is not the idea that there are two side to every argument. It is the idea that you *state* you believe one side of the argument, but not believing that others should believe the same way.

This is not a "moral" example, but if an atheist said it is OK for you to believe in God, then he would be taking a relativistic stance. As opposed to the vocal atheists around here that say, "there is no god and you are stupid if you believe in one".

A Sbyvl36 wins the I-need-to-go-back-to-grammar-school-for-reading-coimprehension Award...

And therein lies the difficulty. Some would disagree. I think that, without accepting total moral relativism, there is a practical necessity in some situations to allow people to act on contradicting morality.

The difference is that a moral relativist would say, "They're both right!". A moral absolutist would say, "One's wrong, and one's right" but may have to accept that they can't always enforce that.