Any Moral Relativists in the House?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think evolution is always genetics. Evolution is also interaction and cooperation, fight or flight, along with environmental factors. Genetics is merely one part of evolution. But not the only part of it.

I can't draw this as an either or issue, evolution is both genetics and environment outside after birth. It is both nature vs nurture, and cruelty and cooperation. Ultimately evolution is a process, and isn't concerned with how life gets to the point of reproduction. Unfortunatly cruelty works, but so does cooperation and compassion. Genes can explain lots of things, but I think it is wrong to call genes the Holy Grail. Genes only explain the shuffle in DNA, but human behaivor after birth unfortunately involves group think, win or lose, and that group think might have the benefit of group survival, but still be based on very false perceptions. 

Well, I wasn't wondering whether you thought that evolution was all genetics (though that's an interesting answer)...but, whether or not you think morality might all boil down to genetics?  Might all boil down to evolution?

That we think that so and so is good or bad because that's what an organism like us very likely would think.  As you often find occasion to say, we believe these things because were all humans.

The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3000 years or so, falsely believing in Ra, Osirus, Isis and Horus. From their point of view those beliefs were moral, and because of that group think, they had thousands of years of success. But that did not make Ra or Isis or Horus real.

I've noticed alot of what I think is conflation between false beliefs and subjective beliefs..and relativist beliefs.

I think though, that if we imagine our genuine cultural relativist they'd be inclined to agree.  That you're right, a moral code being successful wouldn't make it real - but you must be using the term in a novel sense here as the mere existence of the moral code, let alone some assertion to it's success, demonstrates that it is very much and in fact, real.  If they thought morality was about whatever the novel use refers to perhaps they'd call themselves realists, not relativists?

They could suggest that the people living there and at that time had cultural reasons for holding the moral positions that they did, that their moral assertions were a faithful report of those contents.  They weren't reporting a matter of opinion, and their report was not false.  

I think that our hypothetical relativist could use the example of the utility of a moral code to explain why even a relativist, who insists that no culture or code is uniquely privileged, might still believe as a matter of fact that their own culture (or someone else's) is better...and why they can and do insist that a person can be morally incorrect.