good or evil: the same for everyone?

[OldTrees]

The other problem with moral relativism is the conscience.

Not a good argument. Moral relativism uses cultural relativism as (fallacious*) evidence. The conscience also exhibits cultural relativism.

*The argument tries to derive an "ought" from an "is" and does not succeed.

So, you don't agree there is an inherent form of morality? Even people who grow up in a society where they are taught to...I don't know, abuse people know it is wrong still.

I said there is evidence that there is cultural relativism (people disagree about morality). This even extends to societies where they are taught to abuse people. (They do not consider the abuse wrong. See slavery for the slave's good)
However since when did people's opinions about morality actually relate to morality. (hint: probably never)

[Savage]

I agree not everyone thinks the same way on good and evil, but that doesn't mean there are no absolutes.

Example:
a) taught that abusing people is wrong--->go to a culture where abuse is okay---->you keep your cultural intuitions and don't abuse people.

b) taught abusing people is okay---> got a culture where abuse is wrong---->most people will see that abuse is screwed up and will stop.

Note: The people in Hitler's camps (guards and stuff) later came to recognize what they did is wrong, but never the reverse.

Note: The reason slavery was seen okay was because the definition of what a 'black person' is was changed. If I define a black person has non-human then it will feel easier to abuse the person.

Remark: Now for slavery: You are right, why by moral when immorality can benefit me more? I am just concentrating on the fact of recognition behind simply good/bad.

[Zso_Zso]

Lets take a much simpler example (than Nazi's and killing Jews): hunting and eating animals.

Clearly there are societies (hunter gatherer tribes), where killing animals is considered perfectly good moral thing to do.
Similarly there are many individuals who feel the same way.

On the other hand, there are groups and individuals who consider killing and eating animals an immoral act.

Trying to find extreme cases that would be considered immoral by everyone will only get you so far. All it takes is to imagine a more extreme society group with certain extreme rules to bypass it.

[OldTrees]

@Savage
I am sorry my posts are confusing. Maybe using your own words would be less confusing.
All I said was: "Not everyone thinks the same way on good and evil, but that doesn't mean there are no absolutes."
However by absolutes I mean absolute truths.

b) taught abusing people is okay---> got a culture where abuse is wrong---->most people will see that abuse is screwed up and will stop.

No. Unfortunately the USA has a long history the constantly contradicts this. People don't see they were mistaken after a civil rights movement takes away their power to abuse. Rather they remain racist, sexist, homophobic, ...

However neither their belief nor what the movement believed in has any effect on what is moral or immoral. (Probably*)

*There are metaethical theories where their beliefs would effect what was moral or immoral. However there are many more competing theories that say there is no effect.

[Savage]

True, they do, but I don't believe their reasoning behind staying racist/sexist/etc. is related to not recognizing the immorality (which you basically pointed out).

My question is: is recognition that their reasoning is flawed evidence for absolute truths/morals? Recognition can either be public or private.

[OldTrees]

True, they do, but I don't believe their reasoning behind staying racist/sexist/etc. is related to not recognizing the immorality (which you basically pointed out).

My question is: is recognition that their reasoning is flawed evidence for absolute truths/morals? Recognition can either be public or private.

There are many self consistent positions that are mutually contradictory. It is a mistake to assume that people that disagree with you must have flawed reasoning.

So while I disagree with the racist, I cannot assume they have flawed reasoning.

[Savage]

I don't think there are that many. I think if we did a lie test (assuming we got accurate results), then the results would show that most people (80-90%) actually know that what they do is wrong, but either a) admit it and don't want to change, b) don't admit it and don't want to change, and/or c) admit it and do change. (Lie test to show that even if they don't admit it, my assumption of that they admit it/know it in their mind is wrong is my position as this moment).

[OldTrees]

I don't think there are that many.

I don't suppose you would accept anecdotal evidence of myriad mutually exclusive self consistent positions. I seek to understand other viewpoints and have had plenty of opportunity to do so at college. Yes I even gave racists, sexists and homophobes the chance to speak rather that dismiss them outright. However the best I can expect from your position at the moment is for you to now call me a liar since the majority of people that disagree with that position must be liars.

[Savage]

What reasons did the racists/homophobes/sexists/etc give as their reasoning?

[OldTrees]

What reasons did the racists/homophobes/sexists/etc give as their reasoning?

A summary of their point of view would be:
P1)Some are inferior
P2)You should treat others based on their value
C)You should treat some better than others

Now we would disagree with their first premise but it does not take a logician to notice that the argument is sound for those that accept the premises. Thus it would be unreasonable to claim these people are lying about what they believe or "know better".

I even met this point of view:
P1)Pain and suffering are good
P2)We should maximize the good
C)We should maximize pain and suffering

Suffice to say I vacated the premises quickly.

In conclusion: Not everyone sees the world as you do. As a result people can logically draw different conclusions from you without lying or "knowing better".

[cometbah]

I even met this point of view:
P1)Pain and suffering are good
P2)We should maximize the good
C)We should maximize pain and suffering

Suffice to say I vacated the premises quickly.

That is actually not as bizarre / unreasonable as it may sound, as it is in fact a fundamental aspect of Romanticism (or at least a portion of a fundamental aspect).

[OldTrees]

I even met this point of view:
P1)Pain and suffering are good
P2)We should maximize the good
C)We should maximize pain and suffering

Suffice to say I vacated the premises quickly.

That is actually not as bizarre / unreasonable as it may sound, as it is in fact a fundamental aspect of Romanticism (or at least a portion of a fundamental aspect).

Romanticism would have "P1)Feelings are good" this would have lead to a different conclusion. Thus marks the difference between Romanticism and Antiutilitarianism.
So while Antiutilitarianism is not unreasonable, it remains bizarre.