If morality was relative, it would still be absolute

[Timbothefiveth]

1: Assume as true a claim there are no absolutes in the are of morality
2: If this is true, this is not an absolute
3:If this is not an absolute, then for some morality is an absolute
4: If morality is an absolute for them, and their system says it is for others too, then this would mean morality is absolute
5: Thus, relative morality is self-contradictory.
6: Since morality either is relevant or is absolute, and it’s not relevant, it must be absolute.

 

[Betterave]

1: Assume as true a claim there are no absolutes in the are of morality
2: If this is true, this is not an absolute
3:If this is not an absolute, then for some morality is an absolute
4: If morality is an absolute for them, and their system says it is for others too, then this would mean morality is absolute
5: Thus, relative morality is self-contradictory.
6: Since morality either is relevant or is absolute, and it’s not relevant, it must be absolute.

Hi Timbo,

Sorry it’s not that simple - 3 is an obvious non sequitur.

 

[hatsoff]

1: Assume as true a claim there are no absolutes in the are of morality
2: If this is true, this is not an absolute
3:If this is not an absolute, then for some morality is an absolute
4: If morality is an absolute for them, and their system says it is for others too, then this would mean morality is absolute
5: Thus, relative morality is self-contradictory.
6: Since morality either is relevant or is absolute, and it’s not relevant, it must be absolute.

If you can define “absolute,” then that would help a great deal. However, I can think of no such definition which would make this argument work.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1: Assume as true a claim there are no absolutes in the are of morality
2: If this is true, this is not an absolute
3:If this is not an absolute, then for some morality is an absolute
4: If morality is an absolute for them, and their system says it is for others too, then this would mean morality is absolute
5: Thus, relative morality is self-contradictory.
6: Since morality either is relevant or is absolute, and it’s not relevant, it must be absolute.

“There are no absolutes in the area of morality” is not a moral claim, but a claim about metaethics.

(If there were no metaphysically meaningful statements, then your proof would work, but you would be proving that “all moral claims are absolute” under the presupposition that there are no moral claims. Which is not a good idea.)

 

[Syntax]

1: Assume as true a claim there are no absolutes in the are of morality
2: If this is true, this is not an absolute
3:If this is not an absolute, then for some morality is an absolute
4: If morality is an absolute for them, and their system says it is for others too, then this would mean morality is absolute
5: Thus, relative morality is self-contradictory.
6: Since morality either is relevant or is absolute, and it’s not relevant, it must be absolute.

Hi Timbo,

Sorry it’s not that simple - 3 is an obvious non sequitur.

Not only is 3 a non-sequiter, 2 is false since it is a categorical error. That “there are no moral absolutes” is a non-normative meta-ethical claim which can still be “absolute” even though there are no absolute moral principles which function as purely normative principles.