There isn't much reason to resort to violence unless they're using a totalitarian form of moral relativism that demands participation from people who disagree. Maybe you were making an ironic proposition intentionally and it went over my head.
I'd never even really noticed moral relativists or moral idealists before. It seems like an alien argument to me, so I actually found the thread novel for bringing it to my attention.
I lean libertarian, so I don't really see any problem as long as the basic premise of not fucking with your fellows is held up - whether moral relativism or moral idealism.
What I gather from the context I collected in the thread is that moral relativism is used as an attack vector to degrade the stability of societies. In that use, sure, I'll roll with it and say "fuck those guys" because they're starting shit. I'm just not comfortable assuming the label carries that intent (especially when I'm not sure if the label applies to me).
I was actually thinking about it earlier today, so I'm prepared to research it a little. [an hour of navigating a semantic minefield later] I think the major pitfall here is that there are moral relativists saying "right/wrong depends on variables" (I can accept this) but then following it up with "so we should permit all behaviors within our society" (I can't accept societal suicide on a large scale because it will kill people who disagreed with the suicide, which makes it murder).
Finally, a little awkward, but since I'm studying Nietzsche right now, I may be claiming myself to be an immoralist once I can grasp how he's defining the term. I imagine such a proclamation would eject me from the relevant argument.
[meta: I really dislike the ability to chase users for downvoting. Normally I wouldn't flinch, but this thread's buried now so it's basically just you and me, so it looks like I'm downvoting you when I haven't even started thinking about the matter. I don't know, weird gripe I guess.]
There isn't much reason to resort to violence unless they're using a totalitarian form of moral relativism that demands participation from people who disagree. Maybe you were making an ironic proposition intentionally and it went over my head.
I'd never even really noticed moral relativists or moral idealists before. It seems like an alien argument to me, so I actually found the thread novel for bringing it to my attention.
I lean libertarian, so I don't really see any problem as long as the basic premise of not fucking with your fellows is held up - whether moral relativism or moral idealism.
What I gather from the context I collected in the thread is that moral relativism is used as an attack vector to degrade the stability of societies. In that use, sure, I'll roll with it and say "fuck those guys" because they're starting shit. I'm just not comfortable assuming the label carries that intent (especially when I'm not sure if the label applies to me).
I was actually thinking about it earlier today, so I'm prepared to research it a little. [an hour of navigating a semantic minefield later] I think the major pitfall here is that there are moral relativists saying "right/wrong depends on variables" (I can accept this) but then following it up with "so we should permit all behaviors within our society" (I can't accept societal suicide on a large scale because it will kill people who disagreed with the suicide, which makes it murder).
Finally, a little awkward, but since I'm studying Nietzsche right now, I may be claiming myself to be an immoralist once I can grasp how he's defining the term. I imagine such a proclamation would eject me from the relevant argument.
[meta: I really dislike the ability to chase users for downvoting. Normally I wouldn't flinch, but this thread's buried now so it's basically just you and me, so it looks like I'm downvoting you when I haven't even started thinking about the matter. I don't know, weird gripe I guess.]