Relative Defense Of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgements only go as far a ones persons standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. My thesis statement is inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism. Inner judgements are critiques about a persons particular behaviour and what they should or should not have done. Judgements include labels to outline a persons behaviour or lifestyle. An example from Harman’s moral relative defence of moral relativism is that aliens are landing on earth, these aliens have no moral or emotional attachment to the human race and therefore see no issue in killing a person. If they do
Further another example, what is there was a person who was born and raised by murders who treated him well, fed and clothed him. The only catch was that this person had to protect the killers and also kill on their behalf. Would this persons morality be questioned by a person who tried to convince him not to kill? No, the attempt at persuasion would seem irrational and illogical to the killer who has been raised by murderers. The person raised by the killers has a different moral standpoint on killing than the average non-murder. I know that these example are reasons that moral judgements only go as far as a persons standpoint, which means that morality is subjective and not
The simple fact that people have moral disagreements between individuals and groups of people that are intelligent and well informed on a particular subject. Each party will do their best to use moral arguments to change the other parties mind but they will fail because their stance is not appreciated regardless of the facts, and this works in a vice versa fashion. In a traditional argument one person’s argument is incorrect and the other is correct but both will claim to be correct and that is how that the argument will end. Further, this is how things will end only if the people are not in compliance with moral relativism. The reason for this is that there “is no absolute matter of the fact”(Capps, 1975). Both parties are right in there moral judgements in their individual ways at looking at the situation. Also, the disagreement in positions is seen as faultless. Although this actually offers no solution to moral problems between people. That is why “Relativism must allow for genuine disagreements over a subject matter and offer an explanation grounded in moral practices for why moral judgements are only relatively true”(Capps 2009). A person who believes in moral relativism must be able to find a common ground in which information between the two parties can agree in order to get both parties to agree on a compromised moral