Morality - Lemmy.zip

I’ve never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you’re just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.
How about the fact that all morals are made up and therefore obviously relative to those who made them up? There may be instinctual preference on many, but that doesn’t make it a universal rule.

The fact the morality was invented makes it synthetic but not necessarily relative. Numbers are also “made up”.

Its possible that moral truths are objective but our interpretation of these objective truths is imperfect and therefore seems relative.

To use another commenters example, the fact that killing is not morally blameworthy in some cases doesn’t mean that an absolute moral truth doesn’t exist but just that our concept of killing is just too broad to express it.