To reply to the most important thing first...
Before we can clarify the issue here, we need to define what is "Morality" first. Therefore, please give us your understanding of the word.
Likely the best thing, me thinks...
I am using “morality” in two senses:
1.) The normative sense. As used when I talk about personal morals, convictions, and the like. And...
2.) The descriptive sense: As used when I
describe the collective social and cultural moral concepts of certain groups.
Both are openly dynamic in the sense that they are constantly influenced by outside factors and themselves.
When I talk about
morals, morality, and what is moral, I mean what people view as “appropriate or inappropriate” within relation to their normative moral codes or the collective descriptive moral codes. In other words, so as not to be trapped in the “bottle”, I am attempting to best use morality in the two ways it is often referred to in common speech. Since you brought up Wittgenstein, I thought it good to throw this in the air
.
It's nice to see someone shoot a reply my way for once. Someone other than Kaze or Core, that is.
I do, however, find some serious flaws in your logic. Allow me to clarify my position a bit more while refuting some statements you made...
You've claimed a very solid position. . . let's see if I can't chip away at it. No promises I'll succeed, but I do plan to try.
I only ask that you give it an attempt :3 Thank you. My blades are a bit rusty, so this might hurt a little. If done right thought, you shouldn't feel a thing
This argument really reminds me of similar arguments in aesthetics . . . you know that age old debate of
"Can there be an aesthetics expert?"
"Can we objectively say that the Taj Mahal is more aesthetically beautiful than the Hello-Kitty theme house?"
Alas, I noticed that too! However, you should know that my opinions on aesthetics are not at all philosophical. They are neurological and psychological >.<. Either way, I'm a relativist in that regard to.
(More people have broken down into tears after realizing their moral failings than people who have been convinced that Mozart wasn't aesthetically good. If morality was relativistic, then why, so often, do people have revelations that their morals were incorrect, after hearing the perspective of another person?)
Why do some people get into fist-fights when you tell them that J-Pop is crap? Both have strong reactions, neither your example or mine point to anything
objective however. A psychopath, moreover, is not likely to be convinced of any moral wrongness. And if he is, and weeps over it, that reaction is subjective in-and-of-itself as well. It doesn't mean he was actually wrong, to be sure. All it suggests is that the person reacted to something. A reaction does not provide logical proof of anything in this case, as both the reaction and the cause can, and likely are, relative.
If no one can be said to have a stronger ethical understanding then why is there such an Overwhelming instinct to say something like "Noam Tromsky" is morally superior to "Enter name of serial rapist here"?
Nothing in moral relativism stops people from holding strong opinions. Some strongly believe that lizard aliens are controlling the world. Does that hint at a truth? Not likely. Even if a moral code is culturally prone, by the way, it is still relative in the sense that it is not based on objective reasoning. Ergo, while most may view Chomsky as a moral genius, and that may be the cultural norm, it does not mean that he actually is. Or that such a idea is anymore moral than any other. It is simply people caring about their opinions.
Clearly, the instinct to claim that Noam is superior to a rapist is a strong one. It must derive from something.
Yeah, an assumption or opinion based on relative views. Value is also a human concept, and is thus just as subjectively inclined as morality.
Morality, at it's core is an intellectual pursuit. Some people are better equipped for intellectual pursuits than others. Stating something like this when it comes to science and math is not a leap is not controversial, so why would it be controversial here?
I am confused what you mean in this above passage. Sorry T.T Could you clarify?
I also find myself fumbling with questions like "Can I argue that rape is not objectively immoral?"
With things like murder, robbery, etc, I can imagine hundreds of examples in which those would be morally permissible. But rape? . . . never (Not that I have thoroughly tried lol).
Some people undoubtedly view rape as moral. Misogynists, for one, could hold this view. It contradicts with my moral code, and with the larger, societal moral code. Both, however, are subjective. I can no more objectively say rape is wrong than I can say “Jazz is better than blues.” what I
can say is that rape is a breach of the unseen, social contract, and that it infringes upon the legal rights of the victim. Thoroughly much better than saying that it is
“Morally wrong”.
Another point. If morality is truly relativistic as you claim. . . why is it then are children so very often (clearly) morally uniformed. Children often act, ignorant of the moral wrongness of their actions, and clearly, they are "taught" the immorality of their actions by superiors. It is almost universally understood that morality NEEDS to be taught to children.
This actually helps
prove my point. If morality was innate and natural, it would be present the second the kid popped out of the slot. It's not. The child needs to grow up in the environment to learn the local and cultural morals. What's more, if the kid were raised in one place, he would likely have different views of right or wrong. Take adultery for example. In most Western countries, it is viewed as extremely immoral. Yet in Eskimo societies, wife-sharing is viewed as perfectly normal for a single (Or multiple) instance. Depending on which environment the kid was raised in, he would adopt a differing set of morals. Even if they conflict. Ergo: morality is relative.
If morality were relativistic, it couldn't be taught. Yet clearly, children are taught and molded into morality by their parents. That is, I'd argue, because morality is an intellectual problem at it's core, and like any intellectual problem it requires experience and intelligence to unravel.
Morality is reality and thus has to be taught. As my above argument shows, this is really in support of my thesis.
For what's worth, your argument somewhat reminded me of the ontological argument for the existence of god... Not sure why, but it seemed structured the same in a not-so-apparent way x] Perhaps I haven't drank enough tea is all.