Atheists are having it too easy.

[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.

Does this change the fact that the event, according to the relativist, is in and of itself amoral?

[Almanac]

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

So what?

[orourkeda]

Has Willie O'Dea defamed god yet?

[Didimus]

Hey, I'm just playing Devil's advocate

The Devil has all the best tunes.
He might need to review his legal advisors.

[Mercurial]

Does this change the fact that the event, according to the relativist, is in and of itself amoral?

Non-moral, sure but the relativist can say we shouldn't care and even if we should that still wouldn't make it true.

So what?

So the relativist can still have a meaningful conversation with other people if they share their moral values.

[Almanac]

Non-moral, sure but the relativist can say we shouldn't care and even if we should that still wouldn't make it true.

Point > <

Amoral actually. It has more than one sense:

amor·al

Pronunciation: \(ˌ)ā-ˈmȯr-əl, (ˌ)a-, -ˈmär-\Function: adjective
Date: 1779
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

So the relativist can still have a meaningful conversation with other people if they share their moral values.

As above.

[Mercurial]

Sorry I've totally missed your point there. (I like to say non-moral rather than amoral, I think it's clearer in these discussions)

If I accept a set of moral premises and you accept an identical set of moral premises, then we can coherently talk to each other about morality, regardless of whether or not we believe our opinions reflect an external universal moral order.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

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?

You say this as if it is a problem.

We all have these opinions on what is “right” and “wrong” as you say.

You then ask “What basis does he have for making such a claim?“. Well ask him. Listen to his arguments, follow up his evidence and claims, and come to your own conclusions.

Each of us has our own basis for our own morality.

However you then have to distinguish between what ONE thinks is morally “right” and “wrong” and what SOCIETY thinks.

All of us with our moral opinions come together and the best source of HOW to live with each other IS each other. If we want to live together we need to come together and discuss our moral opinions, campaign for them, work on them, and even compromise on some of them.

What I think your question indicates is a slight blurring of the line between individual moral opinion (which can not only vary, but even when the same the rationale behind them can vary) and societal morals.

Neither of them actually allocate the attribute to them of being “right” and “wrong” and more than all of us thinking a work of art is beautiful actually mean that that piece of art has such a property.

Quite simple democracy, one person one vote, is enough to address all of the concerns of moral relativism which you raise.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Good grief.

I can tell you thought long and hard abut the response and used your entire education, experience and acquired wisdom to come up with it. I could not say it better myself. At least I warrant I couldn’t if I was you.

[Almanac]

Quite simple democracy, one person one vote, is enough to address all of the concerns of moral relativism which you raise.

Drowning.