Philosophy Now Forum

Jori wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 2:44 am Response to MikeNovak. To clarify, I meant to say that I follow a certain moral system, but because I am a skeptic, I do not claim to know with certainty that it is true. Also, since I am skeptic, I do not claim that other moral systems are false. In other words, I can be wrong, and they can be right.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 5:09 pm I am morally a relativist when I am doing philosophy but not when I have to act. When the latter happens I am a sort of ex-Christian who will take a lot of risks to fight for what I feel is right.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 10:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 5:09 pm I am morally a relativist when I am doing philosophy but not when I have to act. When the latter happens I am a sort of ex-Christian who will take a lot of risks to fight for what I feel is right.

However I would not say that made you not a moral relativist.

Of course, come the point of having to choose an action, you have no other option but to go with the moral system you think correct. But am I correct, you are NOT at that moment believing more than "I am right". You aren't also claiming "and I believe every rational human in this situation would be choosing the same action based on this moral system I believe to be the correct one.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.
Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world.
Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing moral values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers disagree however. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

From <https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... relativism>

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 30, 2025 5:35 pm Since there are a number of posters who don't seem to have a very good grasp on the meaning of "moral relativism":
........ (definition)........
As for me, I believe that the idea of "moral relativism" is false.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 31, 2025 4:08 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Oct 30, 2025 5:35 pm Since there are a number of posters who don't seem to have a very good grasp on the meaning of "moral relativism":
........ (definition)........
As for me, I believe that the idea of "moral relativism" is false.

How can a definition be false? Just because you consider moral absolutism correct and moral relativism incorrect doesn't make the idea of moral relativism false.

Jori wrote: ↑Sat Oct 25, 2025 10:29 am Moral relativism appears to lead to contradictory conclusions. For instance, if I say A should B, and you say A should not B, then moral relativism concludes that the statements A should B and A should not B are both true. I believe in moral absolutism which says that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:11 am Moral relativism in the global village is chaos; if the foundation of morality is not based on a commonality of humanity, it remains divisive. Our ancestors were not gods, and what they established in their time reflected their knowledge of the world and humanity at that given time. We know today that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. We create meaning; our ancestors, without understanding this, did so spontaneously. This bequeathing of knowledge, echoing through the halls of time to us, is at least three thousand years old, and it needs to be updated. We are more competent than our ancestors, orienting humanity to modernity, and how can these archaic mythologies/religions take us into a future that is reaching for the cosmos? These mythologies are too small, too limited in the freedom of thought, and dwell in the still waters of the past. All things change, but these old mythologies handicapped themselves when they concretized the word. This is stagnation of the mind, with the analogy of the still waters; the mind is deficient in oxygen. Science could be a much better vehicle for humanity's continued travels both in the present and into the future. Morality is all about the survival and well-being of humanity, what better disciplines than those of biology, psychology, and the humanities to guide us, even if those were embraced to create a new mythology, but one that is not concretized with closed-in horizons. That which cannot change must perish.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:55 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 02, 2025 1:11 am Moral relativism in the global village is chaos; if the foundation of morality is not based on a commonality of humanity, it remains divisive. Our ancestors were not gods, and what they established in their time reflected their knowledge of the world and humanity at that given time. We know today that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. We create meaning; our ancestors, without understanding this, did so spontaneously. This bequeathing of knowledge, echoing through the halls of time to us, is at least three thousand years old, and it needs to be updated. We are more competent than our ancestors, orienting humanity to modernity, and how can these archaic mythologies/religions take us into a future that is reaching for the cosmos? These mythologies are too small, too limited in the freedom of thought, and dwell in the still waters of the past. All things change, but these old mythologies handicapped themselves when they concretized the word. This is stagnation of the mind, with the analogy of the still waters; the mind is deficient in oxygen. Science could be a much better vehicle for humanity's continued travels both in the present and into the future. Morality is all about the survival and well-being of humanity, what better disciplines than those of biology, psychology, and the humanities to guide us, even if those were embraced to create a new mythology, but one that is not concretized with closed-in horizons. That which cannot change must perish.

As a moral relativist , I don't agree "we are more competent than our ancestors". Truth is a process not a fixture. Our ancestors survived not because their truth was better or worse but because of their capability to adapt technology to need.

The "survival and well-being of humanity" here and now depends upon the discovery of a technology which will provide a source of energy and which is economically viable and does not pollute but mops up present pollution.

Prometheus stole fire; Shiva drank poison. Both taught us that power comes with risk, and mastery comes through adaptation.
Today, humanity faces a similar challenge: finding energy that heals rather than harms. This is not just a technical problem, but a moral and mythic one — a chance to return fire to the sun.
Myth is not superstition. It encodes human experience, showing how survival depends on trial, caution, and adaptation. Truth is not fixed; it is discovered through doing, learning, and adjusting — just as our ancestors survived by shaping fire to need, not by clinging to dogma.
To endure, we must do the same: harness energy responsibly, cleanse the damage of the past, and keep the world alight without burning it down.