If Moral Relativism Can't Destroy All Moral Principles, Perhaps It's A Form of Moral Absolutism

Moral Nihilism = every moral principle can be destroyed by man.

Moral Absolutism = at least one moral principle cannot be destroyed by man.

Moral Principle X = it's moral to obey local social order

Given Axiom - Local social order is allowed to destroy every moral principle except Moral Principle X.

Conclusion - Given these constraints, local social order is following moral absolutism.

Extended Conclusion - if moral relativism is defined by its constraints on what it can destroy, it is following moral absolutism.

Mathematical Proof that Moral Relativism is Contradictory

 

I think the idea is pretty clear, even if I might have made a few typos.  Typos are easy to correct.  Major conceptual errors?  Less so.  If someone disagrees with the axioms, I can handle that.  As long as the proof logically flows from the axioms, I'm happy.

Symbols Used

AM = Absolute Morality

RM = Relative Morality

NM = Nihilistic Morality

AMS = Absolute Moral Standards

ARQ = Absolute Moral Requirement

OLM = Obedience of Local Morals

NOL = nothing off limits locally

NOA = nothing off limits absolutely

Axioms

Axiom 1  If RM then AMS is an empty set

Axiom 2  Not(if RM then NM)

Axiom 3  If ARQ is a nonempty set, then AMS is nonempty

Axiom 4 If (OLM is not an element of ARQ) then NOL

Axiom 5 If AMS is empty then NOA

Axiom 6 If (NOL and NOA) then NM

Proof

Line 1 Assume RM

Line 2 (OLM is an element of ARQ) or (OLM is not an element of ARQ)

Line 3 If (OLM is an element of ARQ) then ARQ is nonempty

Line 4 If ARQ is nonempty, then AMS is nonempty by Axiom 3

Line 5 If AMS is nonempty then Axiom 1 is contradicted

Line 6 If (OLM is not an element of ARQ) then NOL by axiom 4

Line 7 By Axiom 1 AMS is empty, and by Axiom 5 NOA

Line 8 Since we have NOL and NOA, by Axiom 6, we have NM

Line 9 By lines 1, 6, 7, and 8, we have If RM then NM.  This contradicts Axiom 2.

Line 10 Therefore line 2 will always lead to a contradiction.

QED

Explanation of Proof

Axioms are translated at follows:

Axiom 1  If moral relativism is true then there are no absolute moral standards

Axiom 2  It's false that moral relativism being true leads to moral nihilism being true

Axiom 3  If an absolute moral requirement exists then there exists an absolute moral standard

Axiom 4  If obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement then nothing is off limits locally

Axiom 5  If there are no absolute moral standards then nothing is off limits absolutely

Axiom 6  If nothing is off limits locally and nothing is off limits absolutely then moral nihilism is true

Proof is translated as follows

Line 1 Assume Moral Relativism is true

Line 2 Either obedience of local morals is an absolute moral requirement or it isn't

Line 3 If it is, we have an absolute moral requirement that exists

Line 4 This means we have an absolute moral standard

Line 5 But this contradicts axiom 1 where we assumed no moral standards exist

Line 6 So we'll assume now that obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement.  Axiom 4 implies that now nothing is off limits locally.

Line 7 Since we assumed Moral Relativism was true, we have no moral standards and by axiom 5 nothing is off limits absolutely

Line 8 Now we have nothing being off limits locally or absolutely.  By axiom 6 this has led to moral nihilism being true.

Line 9 By lines 1, 6, 7, and 8, we moral relativism leading to moral nihilism.  This contradicts Axiom 2.

Line 10 Therefore line 2 will always lead to a contradiction.

QED

Quick summary 

Under moral relativism, the obedience of local morals is either an absolute moral requirement or it isn't.  If it is, then we have an absolute moral standard, which is against moral relativism's definition.  If it's not, moral relativism leads to obedience of local morals being optional, and nothing being off limits locally or globally.  This leads to moral nihilism, which we assumed was different than moral relativism.  

Source used - APA definition of Moral Relativism

The belief that the morality or immorality of an action is determined by social custom rather than by universal or fixed standards of right and wrong.

The Poor Quality of Some Video Game Pro-Piracy Arguments

I'm really not a fan of arguments attempting to justify digital piracy, even though some of those arguments may have more merit than others.  I can somewhat sympathize with the argument for preservation, but the short list of piracy-defending arguments below I consider quite poor and I'm more than happy to explain why.

1) Video Game Piracy Is Just Another Form of Robin Hood

With a lot of these pirates, it's not like Robin Hood robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.  These pirates are robbing from the rich and SELLING to whoever is willing to PAY.  Sounds less altruistic that way, doesn't it?

2) Gaming Companies Charge Too Much, So Piracy Is Okay

If you have a lot of time to play games and not enough money to buy them, you should probably spend some of that time working to earn the money to buy them.  Because I know a 40 hour a week job and a short commute doesn't leave me a whole heck of a lot of time for playing games very much.  And I can't picture having a much lighter work schedule than that.

Even if you have a job with crummy pay, we live in an era with a TON of low-cost or free entertainment everywhere you look.  Websites like Pluto and Tubi have more entertainment available than somebody could ever watch.  Why not just amuse yourself with that?

3) Gaming Companies Are Evil, So Piracy is Okay

Imagine some vegetarian animal rights activist stealing and eating as much pork and beef as possible simply because they hate the meat companies for killing animals for food.  Wouldn't that consumption be ridiculous and defeat the purpose?

And that's my big question to those that pirate games.  Why are you still using a product of a company you hate so much?  I would think that if they're as evil as you claim, you'd hate them enough that you wouldn't even want to PLAY their product, much less buy it.

When I got mad at WCW for pushing Goldberg so much in the late 90's, my solution wasn't to pirate their pay per views and watch them.  Nope.  I stopped watching their show altogether.  I wanted nothing to do with WCW anymore because it was no longer something I enjoyed.

Someone who uses a product without paying for it doesn't come across as some kind of social justice warrior fighting against the rich to me.  It just comes off as someone too cheap to pay for the things they want.  Someone who truly hates a video game company for all its evil deeds is not going to play their games at all.  Aren't there a whole lot of other video game companies whose games you can play anyway?  

What I Learned From Video Games

It's interesting that sometimes the paths that APPEAR at first glance to be the quickest and easiest actually turn out to be nothing of the sort. For instance, the Bible discusses the allure of the world of sin and how it appears to be so wonderful on the surface, but it's actually the WORST path you can take.

Also, I found out in my study of physics that Snell's law determines how light bends in order to find the quickest path, because the actual straight-line path available may NOT be the path of shortest time.

But before I learned this from spiritual literature or science, it probably first became apparent to me from the world of video games.  The Mario games in particular.

I quickly learned the warp zones in these video games, back when I was in elementary school.  And I wanted to beat the games so badly that I always took the warp zones to reach the end as quickly as I could, skipping all the unnecessary parts that could kill me before I got there.  And I never could understand why I couldn't beat the games.  

Over time I finally realized that if you DON'T take the warp zones, there are lots of opportunities to power up along the way, so that when you do reach the end, you have a lot more tools at your disposal.  Multiple P-Wings for the tough World 8 levels in Mario 3 and things like that.  And the Gremlins 2 video game was similar.  If I didn't put in the password to the last level right away, I could have a power pack and extra lives available for use.

Also, I realized the hard way while playing Streetfighter 2 that you can win WITHOUT using only the two strongest, but slowest to recover from button attacks (fierce and roundhouse).  When my friend beat me using the weaker button attacks like jabs, I actually ACCUSED him of cheating because even though the game came with those buttons they shouldn't have ever been used!  Talk about embarrassing!

So sometimes the path that immediately appears to be the quickest and easiest is actually neither of those.  Video games taught me that.

I Became What I Wanted, Lost It, And Learned From It

When I was a kid in the 80's, it was a time of huge muscle-men.  I never watched professional wrestling at that time, but I knew who Hulk Hogan was, and I figured he must have been the best.  And I had a lot of Masters of the Universe action figures, and there was no more ideal inspirational fictional character than He-Man.

Ideals like these made me wish I would grow up one day to be a strong man.  I started lifting weights in middle school and in high school I joined the powerlifting team.  In college I began hitting numbers I never dreamed of before.  I became exactly what I wanted to be.

But at the same time, I realized that many others did the same. Even though I felt like a superman, I realized I wasn't alone.  There were HUNDREDS of others who were also supermen.  So even though I was hitting big numbers, I never hit exceptional numbers that made me stand above everyone else.  I achieved my goal of being stronger than I ever dreamed of, but my dreams were shorter than what reality dictates is the strongest.

It's kind of like when I was in 4th grade and dreamed of a time where I could make 100 dollars a day and be rich.  I achieved that dream, but it didn't make me rich.  I became wealthier than I thought possible but realized that my thinking was short of reality.

And I also dreamed of being brilliant and being able to do calculus. I achieved that too.  But I realized that millions of others can do calculus and that math has progressed SO far beyond that it's unbelievable.  I had to stop pursuing formal math after getting my bachelor's degree because I was not sure I could go further with my abilities.

So I realized that people in general are amazing and can do things I never would have even imagined.  I figured if I achieved my goals I'd be at the top of humanity, and I wasn't even close.

But as life continued, I wasn't able to keep all of these goals.  I got injured and could no longer lift heavy.  My injury eventually healed but work and life got in the way and now I'm probably weaker than a normal man on the street who never lifted a day in his life.  But at least I'm not in a wheelchair like Lex Luger, and since I never did steroids I'm not having any issues from side effects from those.

So not only did I learn that fairly normal people typically exceed more than I ever could have imagined as a child, but I also learned that as we age, we'll lose those abilities that we were able to build up in our youth.  We eventually return to dust.  But what a ride.  I'm glad I got to live it.  I don't know what's next, but if all goes well, I'm only halfway chronologically through it.  What is in the future that I can't imagine now?  

Pre-Apologizing

I like the idea of pre-apologizing for something bad you do before you even do anything bad.  If that ever becomes an actual word, I'd like to get a shirt that says, "Make sure you pre-apologize before it's too late.  You never know what could happen."  Childishly stupid, but I still think it's funny.

Messing Up, Sinning, Whatever You Want To Call It...

 Don't mess up on purpose.  If you're anything like me, you'll mess up more than enough on accident.