Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I think part of the problem here is that you are reading the definition too broadly. The fallacy you are hung up on is that if one is a relativist, then one can never hold any opinion on anything. That is reductio ad absurdum.
|
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that a moral relativist believes that morality is a social construct that can change from society to society. In that case, a moral relativist can not critisize the moral decisions that are made in other cultures and societies.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk I can believe that the decision whether or not it is right to take a life depends upon the facts and circumstances of the life being taken
|
That is not moral relativism. If the facts and the circumstances change then the moral judgement can change. You can have different moral judgement in different situations. For example. It is OK to kill someone when they are trying to kill you but not OK when they are just standing next to you. That is not moral relativism.
Where moral relativism comes in is where the facts and circumstances are the same and your moral judgement changes.
In other words, for example: is it OK to terminate a fetus to save the life of the mother? Specific facts and circumstances. A non-moral relativist would say that there is a right or wrong answer here and the answer is universal. A moral relativist would say that the answer to this question could be different in different locations. In other words terminating the fetus could be moral in California but immoral in Massachusettes. Or this is moral now but would have been immoral back in 1955.
