[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I say without a righteous God against whom we can measure our actions, there is no right or wrong. And sm has already disproven relativism, so there we have it.

Disproven? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

There is no _absolute_ right or wrong without some sort of all-defining authority figure that sets the standards for what is right and wrong. Even relativists will agree with you on that. It's the question of whether such a figure (a) exists and (b) has such authority that causes battle lines to be drawn among philosophers.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The pessimist in me worries that many people are only empathetic when other people are looking, and one of the first things about God that is drilled into childrens' minds is that He's always looking.

Yep. He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for -- whoops! Wrong authority figure.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Think of Germany in 1939, and Germany in 2005. The relativism is bound to defend the idea that the culture has not progressed morally. Moral progress has two necessary conditions that relativism doesn't allow: an objective goal, and a standard measure of deficiency. A sprinter who exhibits progress does so against an objective measure (covering the same distance in less time) and with a standard measure of deficiency ( a stopwatch and a set marked off distance). A relativist is not allowed either of those tools.

Not necessarily so. A relativist can judge modern Germany to be superior to Hitler's Germany by his own standards; he simply recognizes that that judgement and those standards are _opinion_ and not binding fact. Moral relativism does not preclude _all_ moral and value judgements; it precludes endorsement of enforcement of one set of standards for all.

Not all relativists are fundamentalist about relativism, just as not all religious people are 100% devoted to the absolute truth of their faith.

If I disapprove of my neighbor's lifestyle and he of mine, that's our prerogative. But if I say "I don't like what he does, but I will tolerate it and not interfere, because I want him to tolerate the standards by which I live and leave _me_ alone in return," is that not relativism to a significant degree?

If I disapprove of my neighbor's lifestyle and take steps to try to change it (say, trying to get laws enacted that would outlaw said lifestyle), _that_ is a different story. I lump all "We need Law X because God Says X Is Right/Wrong" movements into that category, for reference.