If science doesn't assume there are absolute laws or truths in the universe that can be known then what could one hope to learn from science, since we couldn't know anything with certainty?
Likewise, if morality did not presuppose any absolute truths then how could one know what is moral? Since without any absolute moral truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus. How useful would that model be in science? Not very. Then why is it accepted by moral relativists?
If people or societies do not agree on morality does that mean morality is relative? Just because not everyone agrees on morality does not mean there is no absolute morality. That would be like saying just because there may be competing scietific theories that there is no accurate theory possible. The result would be scientific chaos. Similarily, moral relativism leads to moral chaos.
Likewise, if morality did not presuppose any absolute truths then how could one know what is moral? Since without any absolute moral truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus. How useful would that model be in science? Not very. Then why is it accepted by moral relativists?
If people or societies do not agree on morality does that mean morality is relative? Just because not everyone agrees on morality does not mean there is no absolute morality. That would be like saying just because there may be competing scietific theories that there is no accurate theory possible. The result would be scientific chaos. Similarily, moral relativism leads to moral chaos.