# Normative Relativism



## Unkotare (Mar 23, 2014)

Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?


----------



## Pennywise (Mar 23, 2014)

No.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 23, 2014)

Well alright then.


----------



## Pennywise (Mar 23, 2014)

Glad to help.


----------



## Daktoria (Mar 23, 2014)

Of course it can function, but not necessarily.

Also, society is defined by its ideas, not by its function.  Perhaps it can function, but just because it functions temporarily doesn't mean it will sustain itself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 2, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?



Normative relativism = to hell in a hand basket.

Word.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 2, 2014)

There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 2, 2014)

G.T. said:


> There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.



Humans can indeed reason their way to universal morals due to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.  What humans cannot do in the absence of a living God is assert them to be anything more than the most recent absolute of evolutionary speciation sans any enduring ontological justification whatsoever.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 2, 2014)

Nor do they need to. In so far as survival being the ultimate goal.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Sep 2, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Nor do they need to. In so far as survival being the ultimate goal.



Mere survival is not a morally defensible grounds for conduct by a human being.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 2, 2014)

Good for your opinion. 

Humans have empathy, it comes from the nurture of their caregivers as children and has long since evolved into society-wide code. 

Its good enough for survival & advancement. We dont need anything more.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2014)

G.T. said:


> There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals...




I guess it just worked out that way by chance.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.
> ...




There won't be a better post on this thread.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 2, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals...
> ...


Or not at all. 

Religion didnt invent morals, they borrowed them.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...





Recognized them.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 3, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?



At first blush, no.  However, consider slavery in the US in 1830.  Can the argument be made that some Americans believed slavery was morally correct, and other Americans believed it was immoral?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?






.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 28, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?



I can't accept the premise, or maybe I need a clarification.  How can moral code be both relative and applied in full?  

Consider the statement "everything is relative".  Can such a statement be true, when the statement itself must be relative?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2015)

Normative Ethical Relativism


----------



## pauls (Jul 5, 2015)

Moralities change as a civilization grows and decays. Look at the drive to procreate. It is a universal drive - all animals share it but human societies regulate it to some form of ritualistic behavior. That behavior is different in many cultures but the drive remains constant.
So, over time, even in the same society ethical norms evolve so that it eliminates any existence of ethical relatavism.


----------

