Atheists are having it too easy.

[Almanac]

I'm not sure what's "non-natural" about it, though. That looks rather like another term that re-introduces the assumption that morality is something external to us.

If I have a feeling that something is 'not right' in my environment, and which is the result of evolutionary adaptation to predators, I don't think either of us have any difficulty calling that 'natural'.

If, on the other hand, I have a feeling that something is 'not right' in my dealings with another person, and which is the result of evolutionary adaptation to social living, it seems to me you wish to introduce the idea that this is something 'non-natural', and without any justification.

We have a lot of adaptations to living socially - we have theories of mind, empathy, sympathy, the various mirroring patterns, etc etc. What's so strange about the idea that we perceive relations as 'right' when they would lead to a better group outcome?

"Non-natural" is a commoly used designation- in fact even in the encyclopedia you cited (Stanford)- and it has little to do with whether or not morality is objective. You can only speak for your own experience- unless you have evidence that it is normative- and the problem is that, even in your own case, I would hazard a guess that you are superimposing an explanation that is alien to the experience of moral goodness and evil. Do you really think, to continue with the example, that irrational animals are capable of committing actions that evoke the kind of moral reaction that the Holocaust or its many cousins do?

I can say emphatically, by my morality, that it would be a bad law, whether approved by the majority or not.

So is it a bad law or not? Does your morality conform to reality or not?

[Almanac]

According to the relativist, the Holocaust was just an event about which there exists diverse moral opinion. The moral opinion of some is that this event was wrong. The moral opinion of others (such as those who carried out) is that this event was right. But the event in and of itself has no intrinsic moral quality. This is what the relativist says. This is the claim of moral relativism. Looking at the event, we don't clearly perceive that it was wrong- undeniably, intrinsically wrong- and that those who think the converse are morally depraved. It is morally neutral until we project a moral quality (of our own construction) into it.

How can a relativist say then that his moral view of it as wrong is better than that of those who think that it was right and good? What basis does he have for making such a claim? If someone says "I feel great" he's not going to respond, "No, I feel terrible." The values of "right" and "wrong" are our own invention, to be applied as we see fit. We wouldn't consider someone "wrong" or "evil" because he didn't share our opinion about a work of art. It's all subjective and simply a matter of opinion and taste after all.

[Mercurial]

According to the relativist, the Holocaust was just an event about which there exists diverse moral opinion. The moral opinion of some is that this event was wrong. The moral opinion of others (such as those who carried out) is that this event was right. But the event in and of itself has no intrinsic moral quality. This is what the relativist says. This is the claim of moral relativism. Looking at the event, we don't clearly perceive that it was wrong- undeniably, intrinsically wrong- and that those who think the converse are morally depraved. It is morally neutral until we project a moral quality (of our own construction) into it.

How can a relativist say then that his moral view of it as wrong is better than that of those who think that it was right and good? What basis does he have for making such a claim? If someone says "I feel great" he's not going to respond, "No, I feel terrible." The values of "right" and "wrong" are our own invention, to be applied as we see fit. We wouldn't consider someone "wrong" or "evil" because he didn't share our opinion about a work of art. It's all subjective and simply a matter of opinion and taste after all.

Not necessarily so. A relativist could claim, for example, that morality is relative to the general zeitgeist and that everyone in the 20th century ought to feel appalled at the Holocaust.

[Mercurial]

Right. What about your conscience? You are aware of it, I assume? Could not possibly be described as an experience...

If by conscience you mean a collection of moral opinions, then certainly I am aware of my opinions. That I have opinions about morality no more demonstrates that morality exists than my opinion about Romeo and Juliet demonstrates that they exist.

[Didimus]

Not necessarily so. A relativist could claim, for example, that morality is relative to the general zeitgeist and that everyone in the 20th century ought to feel appalled at the Holocaust.

Yikes. In fact double yikes.

[Almanac]

Not necessarily so. A relativist could claim, for example, that morality is relative to the general zeitgeist and that everyone in the 20th century ought to feel appalled at the Holocaust.

Why does he think anyone should listen to him?

[Almanac]

If by conscience you mean a collection of moral opinions, then certainly I am aware of my opinions.

Great, so am I.

Clearly though a dialogue here isn't possible since your experience of everything moral is apparently different to my own- in fact, you don't experience moral demands or the qualms of conscience.

[Mercurial]

Why does he think anyone should listen to him?

Perhaps because they inhabit the same moral sphere, as it were.

[Mercurial]

Great, so am I.

Clearly though a dialogue here isn't possible.

I don't know about that. I think I'm just being cautious. It is unclear to me how much of what you want to call 'moral experiences' are in fact experiences of an external, universal morality. My view is that it is in people's best interests to act as though moral universalism is true, but if I thought I could prove it I would be busy demanding a large office in a very fancy university.

[Mercurial]

Yikes. In fact double yikes.

Hey, I'm just playing Devil's advocate