How about the fact that all morals are made up and therefore obviously relative to those who made them up? There may be instinctual preference on many, but that doesn't make it a universal rule.

[–] deadlyduplicate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The fact the morality was invented makes it synthetic but not necessarily relative. Numbers are also "made up".

Its possible that moral truths are objective but our interpretation of these objective truths is imperfect and therefore seems relative.

To use another commenters example, the fact that killing is not morally blameworthy in some cases doesn't mean that an absolute moral truth doesn't exist but just that our concept of killing is just too broad to express it.

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the fact that all morals are made up

You’re starting from the basic axiom of moral relativism. A moral absolutist would disagree with this axiom.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And all I would have to do would be reference the multitudes of cultures across the earth and through time that have vastly differing morals.

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A moral absolutist would argue that most, or even all, are wrong in one way or another. One can be a moral absolutist without claiming to be able to evaluate the morality of any particular scenario.

To provide an analogous example, there is a two-player game called Hex for which it has been proven that there exists a dominant strategy for the first player, but a generalized winning strategy is unsolved. One can soundly assert that such a strategy exists without knowing what it is. Likewise, its not fundamentally invalid to assert that there exist absolute moral truths without knowing what they are.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Most people would go with murder but then again there's honor killings.