Do moral facts exist or is it all relative

I haven't had a time to respond to much. I've been very busy. I will get to it over the weekend.

Until then, I figured I could post another discussion topic: do moral facts exist, or is it all relative?

Discuss.

I don't have much time to respond but here's a quick paste of a convo I was having with someone about how everything is relative..

Truth is completely relative [see:variable] therefore making existence pointless I've come to a revelation that the only reason anything [cognitively/morally] exists is because it has an opposite. And its subjectively opposite, which makes it [truth] completely relative There is nothing absolute about truth If you believe it, it is truth to you. If someone else thinks different, they believe it as truth and consider you 'wrong' while at the same time, you consider them 'wrong' But since you both believe you're both right, you are both right but also both wrong. It all depends on the context because the truth in one context is wrong in another. Truth shouldn't be "variable" And since it is, that makes my entire existence pointless.

This is incorrect. There are absolute truths in this plane, such as simple arithmetic: 2 + 2 = 4.
Just because someone else believes it equals 5, does not mean that it is true. It may be their perception of truth, but it does not mean it is correct.

As for moral facts, I do not think we can come up with a list of principles that adhere to everyone.
The grade of personal morality is too tied to the development of the inner self or conscience, which renders assimilation impossible.

For example, if we were to say that "killing is wrong" is a moral fact, a murderer would not follow this. His moral compass is so skewed that he does not see the wrong in it.

Only your perception of truth is fact then? or only the 'general census' of 'truthful' perception is fact? Either way, at one point everything you know to be true will be false in 100 years, 100,000 years, etc.

Also, lol @ your opening statement.

You're creating a slippery slope by assuming that the truths which we define as absolute now will be disproved.
In that sense, any reality is deemed meaningless because a superior one will be lived in the future.

Yes, the general consensus of perception is deemed fact because perception is the only mechanism by which we may judge truth from fiction.
And an agreement of perceptions is how we can transform an individual experience into one that is shared and is deemed truth.

The best part about this? In my mind, I'm correct and in your mind you're correct.

..Sound familiar?

So if I were arguing with a child, wouldn't I have the best chance of being right?

In your mind, not theirs. Depending upon the subject they may have 10 years before they can even fathom understanding that what you're saying is true. In their reality they are absolutely correct as are you in yours.

Debating about this is pointless, in my mind.

It's pointless because you're redefining truth as individual rather than consensual. But in a world with 7 billion people, that means nothing.

Last comment for me...


LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVITY.

Take your relativity pill and shove it up your butthole.

It's pointless because you're redefining truth as individual rather than consensual. But in a world with 7 billion people, that means nothing.

I have to agree with this.
1/7,000,000,000 is a big fight.
Most people around the world agree that murder is wrong.
"That's because religion said so", well, if everyone didn't already think it was wrong, they would spit in that guys' face, and these religions would have never started. People became religious because they agreed with certain ideas, such as not being murdered.
My point?
If you take all 7 billion people and survey them, believe it or not, we'd get similar results. Is it moral? It might not be. It might be based on success. "Do not steal-- from me" "Do not kill-- me", these aren't morals, these are security measures. We only have progress and safety because we have been given morals.

A world out there exists where killing and stealing is considered perfectly fine, and I'm sure that world is still having witch trials, and has under 1 billion.

But I'm also very tired, and just rambling an opinion.

Also, the 2+2=4 thing makes sense, if morals do, in fact, exist.

In your mind, not theirs. Depending upon the subject they may have 10 years before they can even fathom understanding that what you're saying is true. In their reality they are absolutely correct as are you in yours. Debating about this is pointless, in my mind.

So pointless you wasted your time debating it.

You don't believe 2+2=4 is an absolute truth?

You don't believe 2+2=4 is an absolute truth?

2+2 = a pair of 2's, depending on how bad his OCD is. Saw that on Dr. Phil today, and it is so wack. Chick couldn't do anything unless it was in 4s.

This is incorrect. There are absolute truths in this plane, such as simple arithmetic: 2 + 2 = 4. Just because someone else believes it equals 5, does not mean that it is true. It may be their perception of truth, but it does not mean it is correct. As for moral facts, I do not think we can come up with a list of principles that adhere to everyone. The grade of personal morality is too tied to the development of the inner self or conscience, which renders assimilation impossible. For example, if we were to say that "killing is wrong" is a moral fact, a murderer would not follow this. His moral compass is so skewed that he does not see the wrong in it.

You sound like somebody:

You sound like somebody:

Mr. Midiri, my high school math teacher??