Theistic morality

[Purple Rabbit]

I subscribe to a form of moral relativism.

If morality is just the view shared by most of society, all moral discussion is meaningless. No-one could ever argue that something was wrong if the rest of society doesn't agree, because that person would be wrong by definition. There could be no moral progress, and, indeed, the idea of moral progress would be redundant, as no one society could claim to be better than any other, as each abides by its own rules.

You're falsely assuming that a moral statement (an ought) can be made into a factual statement (an is). So now you are deriving an IS from an OUGHT. To make a case for a moral statement it is not necessary to be able to state it as fact. The thing that is needed is a sufficiently strong rationale that explains how a certain act affects the balance between beneficial consequences and detrimental consequences and a norm that is accompanying it. This rationale can be argued for if it is informed rationale. That is, empirical facts undergird the rationale. For instance if it is known from medical experiment that HIV cannot be transferred through normal contact, normal contact with HIV-infected people cannot be a reason for different treatment (discrimination) of HIV-infected. Also, it is not true that factualness of a moral statement, should it exist, ensures that no-one can disagree with it. You would need th rationale just the same.

I disagree. I could condemn actions consistently from a framework of my choice or from a framework that is shared in a broad sense. This is precisely what is the process that led to the Declaration on Human Rights. Your alternative implicitly is a claim on absolute moral truth. Because your frame of reference is necessarily absolute if it is not subjective. So your claim that you can condemn actions consistently and objectively is a totally unsubstantiated claim of the absolute.

But what made the Declaration on Human Rights better than what went before, before it was accepted in society? As I've said, moral relativism is singularly unhelpful when it comes to moral disagreement. Utilitarianism, I believe, provides the best foundation for an objective ethical system.

The relativeness of morals is the thing that makes it possible that morals can evolve in the first place. If moral is absolute there is no room for improvement because that would mean that the moral absolute of yesterday is thrown out of the window tomorrow, which is silly when we want to adhere any meaning to the "absolute" predicate. So the relativeness of morals is what made the coming into being of the DOHR possible. There was room to improve and there will be in the future because we become better informed about consequences of actions and how that affect the rationale.

First part, OK that's what I call relative moral. Second part, not OK, it is not necessary to a priori accept some morals to define a relative moral framework.

I'm not sure that I've entirely understood you here. What I was saying was, it is necessary to accept that morality is not just subjective or relative to a society to be able to evaluate different ethical systems. Otherwise, they are all equally meaningless.

As I've explained above meaning is created through a rationale about consequences of actions for a chosen (relative) goal. Just as an example:

Moral statement: abortion is allowed in the first month following conception
Rationale: the fetus has no conscious awareness in the first month following conception
Norm: no harm will be done to any conscious unborn child

Please observe that this all is relative. A traditional christian won't buy this, but the arguments he has left may get fewer over time when more about the development of consciousness is known.

It definitely is not mere opinion. It has a noticeable effect on the world we live in because it is broadly shared opinion.

So, what would you say to someone who rejected the values of the Declaration? How would you persuade them that they were good values? Saying, 'It's a broadly shared opinion' would convince no-one. Moral relativism provides no good reason for people to follow society's beliefs.

See above. But what would you say? Do you really think that it suffices to say that you have decided that the DOHR is absolute?