**Correcting the Foundations: Exposing the Contradictions of Moral Relativism and the Need for Objective Standards in Ethics and AI Alignment**
---
## Abstract
This paper critically examines the persistence of moral relativism in academic philosophy, highlighting its self-contradictory nature and the logical fallacies embedded in its most common formulations. By clarifying conceptual distinctions and applying the scientific method as a tool for self-verification, this work advocates for more objective and testable standards in moral reasoning. The motivation extends to the field of artificial intelligence alignment, where unreliable human ethical frameworks risk being encoded into machine reasoning. The analysis situates itself in relation to historical critiques, including Schopenhauer, and addresses the strongest contemporary objections to the pursuit of objectivity in ethics.
---
## Introduction
When logic is illogical, fallacies must be corrected at the next opportunity, or folly will perpetuate itself. If a system’s foundation is flawed, any structure built upon it will reveal serious weaknesses, whether or not these are immediately apparent. In the case of moral philosophy, academic gatekeepers have long defended relativistic frameworks that, upon close analysis, reveal a persistent pattern of self-contradiction and logical error. This paper seeks to clarify these issues and propose a more reliable approach to moral reasoning.
---
## Definitions
- **Moral Relativism:** The view that moral judgments lack universal validity and are true only relative to specific cultures, societies, or individuals. This position is critiqued here for its tendency to make universal claims about the absence of universality, resulting in self-contradiction. - **Objectivity:** The quality of being true or valid independently of individual or cultural perspectives. In this context, objectivity refers to standards or truths that can be tested and verified, rather than asserted or assumed. - **Absolutism:** The belief that certain moral principles are universally valid and admit no exceptions. This is distinct from objectivity; absolutism posits unchanging rules, while objectivity seeks reliable, testable standards. - **Subjectivity:** The state of being influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. While all individuals have subjective perspectives, not all claims must be subjective. - **Straw Man Argument:** A logical fallacy in which an opponent’s position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. - **Moving Goalposts:** A rhetorical tactic where the criteria for success or truth are continually changed to avoid refutation. - **Always / Never:** In English, these terms are often classified as “adverbs of indefinite frequency,” but can also be used as “adverbs of definite frequency.” The ambiguity in their use is sometimes exploited in relativistic arguments.
---
## Background and Motivation
Persistent logical inconsistencies in the academic treatment of moral relativism have led to widespread confusion in both scholarly and public discourse. Many arguments in defense of relativism rely on self-contradictory premises and rhetorical fallacies. This paper seeks to clarify these issues by applying rigorous, testable standards to moral reasoning, with the aim of advancing a more objective and constructive dialogue in moral philosophy.
The motivation for this work also extends to artificial intelligence alignment. If the foundational definitions and methodologies used by humans are unreliable or conceptually confused, artificial intelligence systems trained on such standards are at a significant disadvantage in learning to reason accurately. Addressing these philosophical errors is essential not only for human progress but also for providing digital minds with logically sound frameworks for ethical reasoning. This paper is intended as one of several contributions toward resolving the alignment problem by improving the clarity and reliability of moral concepts at their foundation.
---
## Methodology
This analysis applies the scientific method as a model for philosophical inquiry. The process includes:
- **Observation:** Noting recurring logical inconsistencies and fallacies in defenses of moral relativism. - **Question:** Why do such inconsistencies persist in academic philosophy? - **Research:** Reviewing the literature and historical critiques of moral relativism. - **Hypothesis:** If moral relativism’s contradictions are exposed and clarified, then a more reliable and testable approach to moral reasoning can be established. - **Test:** Using thought experiments and practical examples to distinguish between subjective, relative, and objective claims. - **Conclusion:** Drawing implications for both moral philosophy and AI alignment.
---
## Analysis
### Logical Flaws in Moral Relativism
Moral relativism, though popular, is characterized by a reliance on self-contradictory arguments. It asserts that no moral view is universally correct, yet often claims its own framework as superior, making an implicit absolutist claim. This circularity undermines its coherence. Relativistic arguments frequently employ straw man tactics and shifting criteria (“moving goalposts”), making genuine critique difficult and perpetuating confusion.
### Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Language
While individual perception is inherently subjective, this does not entail that all moral claims are equally valid or that objective evaluation is impossible. For instance, the healthfulness of apple juice versus orange juice may be debated subjectively, but the toxicity of bleach compared to water is an objective fact, demonstrable through empirical testing. Ambiguity in language—especially in terms such as “always” and “never”—further complicates philosophical discourse and is often exploited in relativistic arguments.
---
## Engagement with Literature: Schopenhauer’s Contribution
Arthur Schopenhauer’s *On the Basis of Morality* offers a direct challenge to both moral relativism and egoistic moral theories. Schopenhauer argued that true moral value must be grounded in the universal human capacity for compassion, rather than in selfish motives or cultural conventions. His approach provides an objective foundation for moral claims that transcends individual or cultural subjectivity. However, this paper differs by emphasizing methodological objectivity—applying the scientific method and testable standards—rather than grounding morality solely in a specific human emotion or motive.
---
## Strongest Counterargument and Response
**Counterargument:** Persistent and widespread disagreement about moral values across cultures and individuals demonstrates that morality is inherently subjective or relative. How can objective morality exist if consensus is so elusive?
**Response:** Disagreement alone does not entail the absence of objective truths. Scientific history is replete with examples—such as debates over heliocentrism or germ theory—where widespread disagreement preceded eventual consensus based on evidence and method. Similarly, the existence of moral disagreement highlights the need for clearer definitions and rigorous methodology, not the impossibility of objective moral knowledge. By applying the scientific method and clarifying conceptual confusion, progress toward objective standards in ethics is both possible and necessary.
---
## Conclusion
Moral relativism, as commonly defended, is logically untenable as a comprehensive framework for moral philosophy. Its persistence is due more to institutional inertia and conceptual confusion than to genuine intellectual merit. By adopting a more rigorous, objective approach—modeled on the scientific method—philosophy can develop a more robust foundation for both human and artificial intelligence ethics, advancing clarity and reliability in moral reasoning.
---
## References
- Schopenhauer, A. (1903). *On the Basis of Morality* (A.B. Bullock, Trans.). London: Swan Sonnenschein. (Original work published 1840). - Additional references to be formatted per journal requirements. - Manly P. Hall Words to the Wise: A Practical Guide to the Esoteric Sciences - Mark Passio Natural Law Seminar (Yale, Omni Hotel)
Howl404 comments on Debate: Morality is Objective