Do you think progressives are smart enough to realize they can't also be moral relativists?

[Tiffanytrans]

Progressive definition: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

There's no such thing as moral improvement for a moral relativist. Slavery would just be currently out of fashion. No more really wrong than wearing white after labor day. Some people think its fine. Others do not. So its not "improving" on anything.

NO. They can't even tie their shoes, that's why they wear birkenstocks.

They're too busy blaming other people for their problems to be introspective.

They're too busy screaming at the sky, pondering if even the sky is facist.

How dare you ask this question, im going to report you, because im not a facist.

[inhua]

nah progressives just love to virtue signal, preaching one thing e. g. equality and equal rights for one side while practicing the opposite e. g. "legal" discrimination under the guise of social justice

no one would care if progressives were racist and sexist if they weren't also claiming to support equality and stopping discrimination of all sorts

[NaultD]

So moral progress is better. It's still relative from one point to another point of time or place.

[Tiffanytrans]

WRONG. There is no "better". Under moral relativism there is no such thing as moral progress, thus you can't also be a progressive.

[NaultD]

As a progressive there is moral progress. To discuss and understand different morals from different times and places will considered in relation or in proportion to something else as a point of discussion.

[Tiffanytrans]

"As a progressive there is moral progress." Agreed. But you can't also be a moral relativist.
there's the contradiction.

[NaultD]

Not really. I can see a future where it is morally good to scalp progressives. Grandma being proud of how many degenerates young boys.

I really don't want that future so i want progressivism to be more popular and people go "scalping people is bad." our morality is the wheel and we as people are choosing a path all together. With a undetermined path the best way to describe our steering is very relative

[NaultD]

many degenerates young boys scalped today.

[Tiffanytrans]

In the absence of a universal standard of law, the only way we can judge an ethical system is by our own ethical system, which is nonsensical.

If we believe that our ethical system gets better over time, then we concede that our current system is not ethically optimal. If we deny a universal rule of ethics, as moral relativism does we are only able to judge the ethical system by our own ethical system, which we necessarily admit is imperfect if we expect it to progress in the future.
To say that our system is imperfect is to judge it by a standard OTHER than our own.

[Tiffanytrans]

Incorrect. You simply do not understand what moral relativism is. Nor do you understand what a progressive means. They both cannot co-exist.

According to relativism, there is no such thing as moral progress. In order for PROGRESS to occur, there must be a change for the BETTER. But, in order for something to get “better” there must be some standard that is being more closely adhered to over time. [For instance, to say that you are getting BETTER at playing ‘Fur Elise’ on the piano entails that there is some fixed standard against which to judge your performance; i. e., some correct way to play.

But, on relativism, there is no such standard; no fixed moral yardstick against which to measure our changing moral beliefs. So, though our moral views DO change over time, they never get BETTER on relativism. They only get DIFFERENT.
In 1800, the majority of our society APPROVED of slavery. So, according to relativism, slavery was PERMISSIBLE in 1800. That is, slave-owners were NOT DOING ANYTHING MORALLY WRONG by owning other human beings as property.

[NaultD]

So what changed between 1800 and today. We view all people as people with rights. Another way to say the same thing is expanding improving our morality. That is how real people use words and how words and meanings change.

That's why we say morals are relative. Sure i don't believe in super point of morality but in conversation i create a understandable starting point and make judgments on things for better or worse. So long as im talking to a reasonable person.

[Tiffanytrans]

It simply does not matter what happened after 1800. You are incapable of claiming something your morality is "improving". "We view all people as people with rights." WRONG.

Objective Facts: True independent of what anyone believes, thinks, feels, etc.
Subjective Facts: Their truth depends on (at least one person’s) beliefs, thoughts, feelings, etc.
Once again. Under moral relativism:
1. Moral relativism by definition requires we judge an ethical system by our own ethical system.
2. Moral relativists believe that our ethical system "gets better" over time, is conceding our current system is not ethically optimal.
3. Therefore saying our system is imperfect is to judge it by a standard OTHER than our own and is therefore logically contradictory.

1. Progressive means to progress to an objective standard.
2. Moral relativists say progress is a subjective standard.
3. Therefore you can't be both because they contradict.

Why is this so hard for you?

[Tiffanytrans]

Today we view all people with rights. by the way some dont.
The fact that events happened after 1800 does not prove nor disprove moral relativism. Its 100% Irrelevant.
According to relativism, then, slavery is MORALLY WRONG in the present day. Most people would like to say that our moral views today regarding slavery are BETTER now than they were 200 years ago. But, if relativism is true, we cannot make this claim. On relativism, neither the present view nor the 1800 view regarding slavery is morally better than the other. Since, on relativism, a culture is NEVER mistaken about morality, we simply went from one correct belief about slavery in 1800 to a different, but also equally correct view about it today. Our current view is not “better”—it is just different.

[Tiffanytrans]

Word useage and semantics does not change ideas. saying "this is how real people use words" Is 100% irrelevant. A rose is still a rose regardless of the axioms R. O. S. E. Regardless if you call a rose a unicorn. In the same way moral relativism is still moral relativism, even if you called it unicorn relativism.

[Tiffanytrans]

Under the view "words change therefore morals are relative" is hysterical.
Owning property is wrong today even if we changed the words "owning" to leprechauns and "property" to rainbows.
Meanings don't change, definitions do. HUGE difference.

[NaultD]

What do you call a leader that no one follows. Someone taking a hike. If no one is getting what your saying did you say anything?

If we are reasonable people our peers will also be responsible people. Together we create our society and how we understand it.

[Tiffanytrans]

"If no one is getting what your saying did you say anything?" YES.
Because saying something isn't defined by cogency or logic its defined by utterance.
And by the way completely irrelevant.

"If we are reasonable people our peers will also be responsible people."
Wrong. Under moral relativism, being a "reasonable person" is subjective. One persons reasonable person is another ones psychopath.

Nobody is arguing people dont create societies together. That point is moot.
AGAIN.
1. Moral relativism by definition requires we judge an ethical system by our own ethical system.
2. Moral relativists believe that our ethical system "gets better" over time, is conceding our current system is not ethically optimal.
3. Therefore saying our system is imperfect is to judge it by a standard OTHER than our own and is therefore logically contradictory.

[Tiffanytrans]

""If we are reasonable people our peers will also be responsible people."
You know whats so stupid about this claim?
This presupposes the objective standard of reciprocity. Which is an obvious contradiction to moral relativism. You have no grounds under that view. ZERO to make such an assertion.

You are not saying "someone -aught- to be reciprocal"
You're NOT saying "someone MIGHT be reciprocal"
That statement says someone WILL be reciprocal based off of your behavior.
Its not saying "its my opinion that a person will be reciprocal"
It says that reciprocity is an OBJECTIVE result from your behavior.
Reciprocity denotes a moral action, one -aught- to do. "the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another."

Therefore your claim is a contradiction.

[NaultD]

We judge it to the one we should create as time moves forward. If i was the same person as i was 15 years that will be embarrassing. Same can be said if 15 years from now im the same person that is embarrassing.

We take the same logic to society over time.

[Tiffanytrans]

Facepalm. "We judge it to the one we should create as time moves forward."
That right there is an objective standard, not a subjective one.
AGAIN. According to relativism, then, slavery is MORALLY WRONG in the present day. Most people would like to say that our moral views today regarding slavery are BETTER now than they were 200 years ago. But, if relativism is true, we cannot make this claim. On relativism, neither the present view nor the 1800 view regarding slavery is morally better than the other. Since, on relativism, a culture is NEVER mistaken about morality, we simply went from one correct belief about slavery in 1800 to a different, but also equally correct view about it today. Our current view is not “better”—it is just different.

[Tiffanytrans]

You know how stupid it sounds to say when you were 15 you said chocolate icecreme is "better" than strawberry and how now when you are 30 you "progressed" to think strawberry is better than chocolate?
This is how stupid you sound.

[NaultD]

But we are talking about high moral judgment and character. We are expected to be better as we get older.

Expecting some high priest from 300 ad that knows all the holy scripture to be a good person today is equally laughable.

[Tiffanytrans]

WRONG under moral relativism you're expected to be "different." Not better.
Your opinion about chocolate ice creme when you were 5 wasn't "wrong" its subjective preference.
Just like your opinion 15 years from then when it changed to strawberry isn't wrong or right today, its certainly not "better" than it was when you were 5.

Your priest example is trash, because at least the priest isn't living in a self contradiction.
Because that priest believes in moral objectivity. Hypocrisy isn't equal to a logical contradiction.

[Tiffanytrans]

Its called an analogy. Changing your view from 15 years ago to strawberry from chocolate wasn't wrong. Its not "better" to like chocolate than strawberry. Its personal taste.

In the same way MORAL JUDGEMENTS from 15 years ago to rights from slavery wasn't wrong.
Its not "better" to like human rights than slavery. Its JUST PERSONAL TASTE.

[NaultD]

People are contradictory and knowing that we make morality judgments. This is why we have jury of peers and people figure shit out as we go.

To have everything preordained is not a life worth living.

[Tiffanytrans]

WRONG. People CAN be contradictory, not they "ARE" contradictory. there's a huge difference between saying "chocolate is better than strawberry" And then also saying thats just preference.
VS.
Saying god will judge me if i do something wrong, and then doing the wrong thing anyways. Saying priests will sin and nobody is perfect is CONSISTENT with their worldview. Saying chocolate is BETTER than strawberry isn't consistent with moral relativism. Sorry.

It does not matter if things are pre-ordained or not. IRRELEVANT. Thus im ignoring it.

[Tiffanytrans]

Having a jury of peers has absolutely nothing to do with moral relativism. Nothing. To claim it does is begging the question. I could just as easily say the reason we have that is because morals ARE objective and we need laws to protect the objectively innocent persons. I wouldn't do that, because im not dishonest.

[NaultD]

I will always say i have better morals then someone from 1800s slave owner, 300 ab high priest. Today was better yesterday.

[Tiffanytrans]

You can always say you have better morals then someone else, just like you can always say the toaster is talking to you. That does not make you right.
Under moral relativism that's JUST YOUR OPINION.
Some people think bringing back slavery would be progress! What makes them wrong?
You'd say.. "nothing thats just their opinon!" Id say... EXACTLY.

[OddBeMe]

You’re an idiot. You’re basically saying we shouldn’t progress and not learn, invent new tech and save more lives.

Why are conservatives shiteating sadists?

[Tiffanytrans]

The idiot is the person straw-manning, i. e. you.
You can progress all you like, what you can not do is ALSO be something that contradicts it.

Why are progressives shiteating illiterate morons?

[OddBeMe]

Contradicts progress? That’s status quo…ie conservatism. How many glasses of wine have you had?

[Tiffanytrans]

I never said it contradicts progress. How many drugs are you on?

[Sasahara]

Picked the option They are to busy blaming other people for their problems to be introspective