President Obama: Do you really love America?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given the discussion we had the other day, and the information you were given then, from reputable sources, you have no business shopping the above over simplistic caricature around, because (assuming you read those sources), you should know better.

Sorry, I don't remember. Link?

The post is here. You gave it a kudos, so I'm assuming you read and liked it, and the conversation thereafter was enjoyable and informative.

Hopefully you read more than the snips I provided, which by themselves will give you an idea of the broad array of views even among folks who accept that morality is relative.

---

At best, moral relativism is sloppy and lazy thinking. At worst, it's morally bankrupt, at its heart asserting that morality doesn't really exist and any assertions about right and wrong are merely opinions enforced by whoever has the might and numbers to enforce them.

That is not the basis for the moral judgments of moral relativists. I should know; I am one. I don't argue that morality does not exist, only that everyone has their own perspective on it, and that perspective is not necessarily "opinion", but rather, the reasonable outcome of values we each hold, values which may vary from person to person.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, once you've asserted "moral relativism", you've abandoned any right to be morally indignant about anything.

This is a silly line of reasoning. One of the key attributes of humanity is our attribute of making judgments; indeed, our very species name, Homo Sapiens ("Man, the Wise") reflects the primacy of judgment in our lives. Simply because some of us understand that not everyone shares our values, it doesn't follow that we lose the right to pronounce our own views, or discuss them, or that our views are automatically invalidated by dint of the fact that we acknowledge.

If you really believe in moral relativism, then pretty much anything goes. So at that point, you've have no cause to judge anyone's drone strikes. "They consider it good. You consider it bad. Who can say..."

This too is silly, because root values can and do form the basis for moral judgments. Asserting that we cannot express a coherent opinion simply because we disagree about the root source is simply a fiat claim bereft of support. I can clearly say that killing civilians in a conflict is an evil that should be avoided, because if I had no involvement in a conflict, I would not want to be attacked as a result of said conflict.

Are you alleging that all morals are absolute? You yourself have already demonstrated, quite ably, that the injunction against killing is pliable depending on circumstances. It is relative to the intent and situation of both the killer and the victim. If morals are absolute, all killing is murder.

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.