Is it actually? As far as I’m aware, it doesn’t really make any statements that anything is moral or immoral, nor is it a framework that could be used to determine such things by itself, more so a statement on the validity of such things. Or in other word, is it really a moral thesis, or is it a thesis about moral thesis?
Yeah I don’t understand the point the meme is trying to make
You’re on the right track here. It’s a metaethical claim, not a moral one.
You could argue that moral relativism is a metaethical thesis and so is not straight away self-defeating. Even so, moral relativists often go on to claim that we shouldn’t judge the moral acts of other cultures based on what we take to be universal moral standards. Because, get this, it would be wrong to do so.
This sounds like Goedels theorem. How could a philosophy be consistent and have an opinion about every moral topic?
I’m not sure morality would have the same problems with recursion that math has.
ITT: bad philosophical arguments
I’m pretty sure “moral relativism” is in the realm of metaethics and not ethics. There’s a distinction between making a claim about morality and making a claim about how moral claims are made.
