Professor Shows Student Why Moral Relativism is Unreasonable! #Shorts

Professor Shows Student Why Moral Relativism is Unreasonable!

[galaxyn]

The lives of moral relativists are better off when they loose their arguments than when they win them.

[rayan]

I mean that’s not really a convincing counter argument. Universities are not run by relativism. The student argued about morals in human kinds and not the fact that there’s no regulations and policies in his school.

[hamster]

The Professor seemed to have confused “relative” with “arbitrary”.

[daniellevy]

Oh I love this so much, sounds like something I'd do, though I'm not sure I'd give him the A.

[Mark-cdwf]

A moral relativist only believes it until someone kicks him in the shin.

Or cuts in front of him in line.

Or steals from him.

Or….(you get the point).

[matswessling]

that was the worst argument I heard from him and that says a lot.
the teacher was employed to follow some rules. that doesnt in any way that these rules are more absolute right than any other rules. Just that will live in a societu where we need to agree on some rules to be able to cooperate.

[Emiiiill]

This doesn’t really make moral relativism unreasonable, it makes the student unreasonable because he isn’t acting on it. This world isn’t fair, it has never been and never will. So what the teacher does is pretty good.

The only thing morals are good for is keeping society stable and in order. But it’s not objective.

[anon]

Moral relativeness doesn't mean there are no right or wrongs, fair or unfairness....It means that these rights & wrongs are rooted in the idea of our survival as a species rather than some divine immaterial reality.

[rationalsceptic]

The Moral Instiinct comes from Evolution..look at Elephants..language gives us the ability to value and develop Ethics..no God needed

[kiwisaram]

The moment you call the police, you know you no longer believe in moral relativism.

[KPsychRN]

Poor example. The professor behaved in a way which was both unanticipated and contrary to the social norms of a student-professor relationship and the expected grading criteria, regardless of whether the criteria was expressed or implied.

Moral relativism does not assert that there can be no collectively-held morality, but only that such a morality is not rooted in an objective standard and is, therefore, not immune to changes in opinion over time.

[ETERNVLLVLLVBY]

Murder is merely a term created by society to describe the unlawful killing of another human being. Killing is neither right nor wrong. Morals are relative. If there were no people in the world to care about morals, then morals would not exist. We're just like animals. The only difference is us humans tend to think of ourselves as "better" than animals merely because we're able to articulate our feelings into words. There is no 'better' or 'worse' or 'should' or 'shouldn't' in the realm of objectivity. Animals are just as sentient as humans are in that they can feel emotions and care for other animals and people. However, they still kill. The death of a human is no more tragic than the death of an animal. We merely consider it more tragic because of the bias that humans consider themselves as superior. Another thing we can look at is how we even call things artificial when we create them, as if we're not from nature ourselves. Technology comes from humans and humans come from nature, therefor technology is a product of nature. There is nothing unnatural about humans or their creations. We. Are. Animals. Things like morals, laws, justice, and all that other jazz? Entirely subjective. There is no universal moral that everyone can agree on. Even the golden rule of "treat others how you wish to be treated" can be thrown out the window when you take masochistic sadists into consideration. Surveys and statistics prove nothing. The majority can agree with anything but that will never turn opinions into facts. Value, love, hate, importance, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder and there's nothing you can do to change that. Even assuming God exists, he's merely passing his subjective judgement onto humans and claiming it to be righteous merely because he considers himself superior due to having created the universe but creating the universe doesn't make your opinions objective. It just means you hold all the power. There is nothing here you can refute, try as you might. Morals are biased and relative to culture and empathy varies between individuals as well. Sure, I have my own morals too but I'm not going to get all egotistical and claim that I know what's truly right or wrong. My morals are just as subjective as anyone else's. No one and I mean NO ONE knows what's truly right or wrong. As far as objectivity is concerned, right and wrong are entirely fluid subjective constructs. If there really is a list of truly objective morals somewhere out there, we humans will never know if it's factual or not. EVER.

[kylebrink]

It's absurd to suggest that moral relativism is the same as anarchy. This story has a happy ending, because the people in the story share enough moral philosophy. If they didn't then they wouldn't simply continue on at each other's throats, one of them would submit or leave. I believe there is no objective morality, it doesn't mean I have no opinion on what is right or wrong, it just means I don't believe it's objectively better than any other argument for what is right and wrong. It isn't possible to objectively argue that one moral philosophy is superior to another.

[Phylaetra]

Cool story bro - I can tell he's lying because that is not what moral relativism argues.

[ploppysonofploppy]

WLC being wrong again. The paper was about MORAL relativism right? Should have been marked on its philosophy not its morals.
Stupid point.

[synesthete]

Love cannot exist in a world of moral relativism. You cannot watch someone you love get hurt or abused and then go like “Oh, it’s relative - the perpetrator must be right because they think they’re right.”

[MichaelJohnson-kqqg]

Nope, that's a moronic argument and a story that obviously never happened. So, worse than just being a stupid argument, it's also a lie.

[chriswaters]

Since it is apparent gods moral dictates follow human aspersions then gods laws are as subjective as man’s. Moral relativism is simply thinking. God forbid that happens.

[czgiomn]

Funny anecdote, but that doesn't actually prove that moral relativism is false, only thay the student doesn't really believe what he wrote. Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche had pretty strong arguments to show that the only objective moral principle is "might makes right".

[dross]

Compared to God of the Bible, wouldn’t everyone be relatively moral by comparison? Hitler looks like a cuddly kitten compared to God of the Bible. How can absolute morality originate from a monster?