My friend tell me that there is no truth and objectivity of the facts, if I believe that smoking is good is good, and if other believe that smoking or other sin is bad, is bad, but only for he, not for all like one objectivite thing.
How did you reply to that?
That opinion leads to some very dangerous practical conclusions. What if I decide that for me (according to my subjective morality) murder is not wrong? Stealing isn’t wrong? It’s quite a steep slippery slope. But relativism is often straw-manned if I’m being honest. I still don’t think it is right, but if your friend’s argument was just what you described above I think the above couple questions should be ways to either clarify his actual position or see how he’s wrong. To be honest, I’m surprised you’re have such philosophical debates with your friends mate
Think about it. If morality is subjective and there is no objective standard of right and wrong, nothing prevents someone from murdering your friend and stealing his money. The murderer could not even be prosecuted, because for him murder is good. Children could be tortured, women could be raped, entire families could be locked into a blazing building to burn to death, and we could do nothing, because the perpetrators of these deeds could hide behind ‘Well, for me it’s the right thing’. Textbook sophistry, I am afraid, and not a very original nor persuasive argument philosophically speaking.
If that’s true, the truth of all truth being relative is in itself relative. It makes no sense.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.