Relativism debunked in a nutshell

[IndependantAce]

Relativism is the notion that morality is merely a social construct, or simply up to the individual to decide. But it's easy to debunk this and prove that morality is absolute like mathematics. Some examples:

1. If moral truth is relative, then it follows that all truth is relative - meaning that if someone believes in Santa Claus, or believes the moon is made out of cheese then it is true, just because they believe it. If one claims it's "wrong" for a person to believe this, then this debunks the notion that life or moral truth is meaningless, since if that is the case then there can be no obligation to believe things which are "facts". If a person believes in Santa Claus, who are you to decide they are wrong?

2. If life is meaningless, or morality is relative - then that also means that if I decide that there is one, absolute truth that applies to everyone - since if it's relative, and I decide it is absolute, then I can't be wrong. As paradoxical as it is. On the flip side, if you claim that it is absolutely relative for everyone, then that in itself is claiming there is some type of absolute truth - thereby debunking itself.

Personal experience is that deep down, so-called relativists know deep down that truth is absolute, but simply fear it because they want to ignore it and defend deviancy. Either that or they're just too weak to take a stand on anything, or possibly jealous of those who's lives have meaning, and therefore feel the need to deny the reality of objective truth and meaning simply so they can feel more content about their own meaningless lives.

 

[IndependantAce]

Seems like relativists can't defend their folly.

 

[alang1216]

Relativism is the notion that morality is merely a social construct, or simply up to the individual to decide. But it's easy to debunk this and prove that morality is absolute like mathematics. Some examples:

1. If moral truth is relative, then it follows that all truth is relative - meaning that if someone believes in Santa Claus, or believes the moon is made out of cheese then it is true, just because they believe it. If one claims it's "wrong" for a person to believe this, then this debunks the notion that life or moral truth is meaningless, since if that is the case then there can be no obligation to believe things which are "facts". If a person believes in Santa Claus, who are you to decide they are wrong?

2. If life is meaningless, or morality is relative - then that also means that if I decide that there is one, absolute truth that applies to everyone - since if it's relative, and I decide it is absolute, then I can't be wrong. As paradoxical as it is. On the flip side, if you claim that it is absolutely relative for everyone, then that in itself is claiming there is some type of absolute truth - thereby debunking itself.

Personal experience is that deep down, so-called relativists know deep down that truth is absolute, but simply fear it because they want to ignore it and defend deviancy. Either that or they're just too weak to take a stand on anything, or possibly jealous of those who's lives have meaning, and therefore feel the need to deny the reality of objective truth and meaning simply so they can feel more content about their own meaningless lives.

You have woven a semantic jumble that makes no sense. There is no such thing as "moral truth" so it can't be either relative or absolute. Facts are absolute but morality is relative.

- Everyone has a moral code which differs from every other person. Even if they get their code from the same source, say the Bible, their interpretation of it is unique.

- Every society has a moral code which differs from every other society. Societal morality changes/evolves over time. In our country slavery was once considered moral, now it is not. Can we judge our founding fathers by our current moral climate? Were they immoral or do we accept that their morality was relative to their time and place.