In continuation with my argument for objective morality...
I see from the previous replies that relativists uphold consensus as justification for what defines right and wrong.
Everything inside tells me that's wrong. Hypothetically, if I was about to tread on you, you have to be able to tell me that what I am doing, or about to do, IS wrong. In the real definition of the words: IS and WRONG.
Wrong for all people, at all times, everywhere, regardless of peoples feeling about it.
Consensus is not justification for objections. Opinions are relative and can easily change. Even the consensus can change, and not just hundreds of years from now, as it could change overnight for all we know. So at a different point in time, a certain act
may not be considered immoral, or wrong.
Then where does your objection stand? It wasn't really wrong, now was it? You lack justification for your objection
unless, like I said,
its wrong for me to do it, AS IT IS
for you to do it, or anybody else for that matter. And that's the key, wherein, if you don't have the ability to
make it right for yourself tomorrow, then I better start listening, because it probably is wrong for all people, at all times, everywhere.
Likewise, in order for me have grounds to hold back and stop myself, you have tell me I'm wrong
regardless of what the consensus,
or non consensus says. You have to tell me its wrong even though I have others egging me on.
How does relative morality work? Does my comrade's opinion cancel out your comrades, and we count the votes? What if it's fifty plus one. Do I have to convince just two people to make my actions right and just?
Even with consensus, having more people on your side doesn't change truths. The consensus years ago was that God existed. Does that make it so? The consensus use to be that slavery was okay. Did that consensus make it right? Or IS slavery wrong? The consensus in nazi Germany was that the jews were subhuman and should be wiped out. Did that make it right?
Even for those who agreed with it, did their feelings make the actions right for everyone, or just themselves?
I'm nowhere near finished discussing this, but for the rest of this post, I would like to reply to something Dex said.
The debate exists precisely because there's no absolute standard, people disagree about it.
As mentioned, moral disagreements don't prove relative morality. In fact, it provides evidence to the contrary. First of all, it shows that when one disagrees with the another,
that person is holding the other accountable to what IS objectively true and what is objectively right and just. It isn't that the moral law is unclear, it which value takes precedence over the other. Which order should they be upheld?
Also, its easy to confuse the
relative means of attaining a desired end(the value itself) with the
relative morality. On some issues (certainly not all), liberals and conservatives want the same things--the same ends. They just disagree on the best means to attain them.
For example, regarding the poor, liberals believe the best way to help is through government assistance. Yet, since conservatives think such assistance creates dependency, they would rather stimulate economic opportunity so the poor can help themselves. Notice that the end is the same (assist the poor), but the means are different.
Likewise, both militarists and pacifists desire peace (the end); they simply disagree as to whether a strong military is the best means to attain this peace. They both agree on the absolute end; they just disagree on the relative means to achieve it.
