That's circular reasoning. Criminals are defined by what it considered illegal.TheIronRuler said:.lionrwal said:I was having a discussion with my friend about his justifications for piracy, and he told me a story about "moral relativity." Basically it went that these two people murdered someone, and they claimed that it was because of moral relativity, and the judge gave them a very short sentence instead of life. If you don't know what it is, it's the belief that you can't impose your own morals on someone because there are no set morals for anyone. This was literally his only justification.
I do believe that people have different sets of morals, but I don't buy that someone could believe murder is good.
So what's your take on moral relativity?
But... Rule of the Majority... In a Democracy, the Majority usually DOES impose their morals like they do in not letting Gays marry in most countries (And killing them in some).
But in a multi-party system, not a retarded one like the USA's, Minority groups will fight for the welfare of their own minority...
Pirates aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected... They are criminals.
What is illegal is related (but not identical) to what is considered immoral by the majority in a society.
Pirates, like any other group have a particular view that they attempt to argue for, just like any other.
To say they are criminals implies by definition that their actions are immoral.
But if morality is relative, then whose definition of immorality are they being judged by?
You can't say one minority group's ideas (which the majority disagrees with) are implicitly more valid than another without making a moral judgement on those ideas.
I could use the same argument you just made to support anything.
For instance:
"Gays aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Black people aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Women aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"People who own cars aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
"Children aren't a minority group whose rights need to be protected..."
And so on, and so forth. To make such a statement at all requires you to already have a moral judgement of some kind. Which says nothing at all about whether morals are relative, but merely illustrates your own personal moral biases.