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.

If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example

This does not follow from moral relativism. Moral relativism simply states the morality of serial killers is determined by people rather than an absolute truth.

For example, if you add the detail of “serial killer of humans”, most societies would deem that morally wrong. In contrast, “serial killer of wasps” would be considered perfectly fine by many. A moral relativist would say the difference between these two is determined by society.