The single most prevalent argument to my belief in absolute Right and Wrong is the concept of "moral relativism".
Moral relativism has two broad categories: one states that no person should tell another person what is right and wrong. I have little problem with this idea, because I don't know who to set up as the Grand Moral Arbiter of the Universe. Yeeks. Not me, that's for sure. I have too hard of a tmioe with my own moral standards to try and give you yours. In any case, I think that adherents to this form of moral relativism will still agree that society as a whole can establish a set of moral values that the individual is supposed to adhere to. I think this worldview has merit.
However, there's also the more extreme version of moreal relativism that says, in effect, anything I say is right is right for me. This is the "anything goes"
philosophy that I don't believe can lead to anything but anarchy and barbarism. And this is why (restating my
reductio ad absurdum argument from the other thread):
1. The primary tenet of moral relativism (especially as professed by the posters here) is that you don't want to be told what is right and wrong (I won't even bother with caps in this case, because that's too far advanced for this simple discussion). This is why you get upset when I say there are things that are absolutely right and wrong, regardless of your opinion. You want to be able to decide on your own.
On it's face, this sounds great! It sounds like a recipe for an enlightened society wherein each person is able to reach their own level of spiritual enlightenment and (ya da ya da ya da).
2. There's a problem though. Because if you can make your own judgments, so can I. And every one of my decisions about right and wrong is just as valid as yours. Thus, if I decide I want to crap on your porch, then I can do so, and you have no say in the matter.
"What?" you exclaim. "I have lots to say in the matter! You cannot crap on my porch!" Well, in moral relativism, yes I can. Because all I have to do is believe it is right, and it doesn't matter what you think. Since I cannot tell YOU what is right, you cannot tell ME what is right. And in fact, if I get tired of your nattering about me crapping on your porch, and I feel morally justified, I can simply shoot you, and you have to accept it.
Unless there is some outside, governing set of rules, then moral relativism leads inevitably to anarchy. Reductio.
If you want complete free will to act however you please, then you must give that same free will to others and accept the consequences. You may judge me, but your judgments have no effect on me, and thus are simply mental exercises for you. This is what I meant when I say moral judgments are meaningless in a society based on
extreme moral relativism.
(Or dare I call it "absolute moral relativism"?
)
Joe