Why Relativism Will Lead to a Disintegrated Society | Vanessa Smiley | TEDxYouth@SAS

In such an interconnected world, it is no surprise that moral relativism is held in high regard. In this talk, Vanessa Smiley presents an opinion that runs contrary to the 21st century value of moral relativism. Smiley argues that although people should exercise tolerance towards different cultural and moral views, there are dangers and hypocrisies of moral and cultural relativism, and in terms of the legal code, certain cultures are superior to others in a legal context.
Vanessa Smiley is a sophomore at the Singapore American School. As someone who has grown up going to international schools, Smiley has had the opportunity to gain insight into different cultures around the world. Constantly questioning things around her, Smiley enjoys studying psychology and philosophy in her free time. Aside from psychology and philosophy, Vanessa likes reading books about Area 51 and running.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx

[@palantyr]

Relativism is a broad topic. What she is mostly concerned about is moral relativism in judicial system of America. I think the name of this talk should change to reflect that matter.

[@soluschristus8360]

Are you absolutely sure about that?

[@Enzo-xi2cm]

@@soluschristus8360 relatively

[@soluschristus8360]

@@Enzo-xi2cm objectively evasive.

[@Enzo-xi2cm]

@@soluschristus8360 🤣

[@soluschristus8360]

@@Enzo-xi2cm and speechless. Sooo.... What is a woman? Isn't that a Bee Gees 70s tune?

[@oscarheitmannruiz6831]

Are there any arguments that I missed or are there just none? It seems like she just says:“moral relativism is outrageous!“ I get what she’s getting at concerning law but law doesn’t presuppose that what it enforces is good those are separate issues

[@brixettedesmit9500]

Brilliant talk, the world needs people like you more than ever.

[@jaredmatthews7988]

Think Critically to find absolute truth. Is it possible that God created Evolution. God is seen as causation. Evolution is not causation but rather process. They are not contradictory ideas because they are not answers to the same question.

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

Evolution is that God created the universe via evolution of beings.

[@sandollor]

All worship the teacup behind the moon!

[@jfs5873]

You know what she means, stop nitpicking

[@grubbybum3614]

God is a belief, not a truth.

[@gevansgueco1501]

@@grubbybum3614 This statement seems to me as a belief rather than truth.

[@chantelleboduel7117]

Damn this girl is fire! Absolutely love this video. What a courageous, strong young woman.

[@sowhat...]

Chantelle Boduel yea! I bet some people in the crowd would be irritated it but hey truth be told! though when she said she's sure everyone in that room would agree that rape is wrong I thought don't be so sure there might be a rapist the but then again a rapist himself probably would know deep down that rape is wrong which would go to show how morals exist objectively which brings me back to the main point which is that there is a crashing logical victory of moral objectivism Vs moral relativism. boom! haha. she also seems to have a low tolerance for baloney. but scientists are still trying to figure out what it is about baloney that causes indigestion and hopefully will come up with the magic pill soon! she seemed like she was really pissed by moral relativism and had to get it out of her chest. you can tell by the way the emotional charge affects her breathing while talking lol. I guess the fact that while there were probably moral relativist vultures in the crowd ready to attack every trace of basic logic left on this planet she still got out there and called it stupid (or I don't remember exactly what word she used) makes her even more courageous. congratulations to her for not deciding to not talk about it because it might be politically incorrect and a certainty that loads of people would disagree with her

[@piercetriboletti9453]

Chantelle Boduel she doesn't know what she's saying.

[@MrPabloguida]

First of all, amazing! She is impressive! However, it is important to distinguish descriptive moral relativism from meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism. The first is just the observation that people from different culture or social environment have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong, and to deny this is just incoherent or stupid. Meta-ethical moral relativism is to say there is no right and wrong, and normative moral relativism is to say that because there is no right and wrong everything has to be tolerate. I agree with her! But, to say that murder, rape, stilling are wrong, and therefore, they are moral absolutes is a mistake.

[@nathanraymond7525]

Pablo Guida yes man. For me , living in America, interacting with people from different cultures, living in Spain and Japan... I’m a relativist.. yet I’m a Trump supporter and against the left , which is weird because most Trump haters consider the same to hate Trump due to them bring relativist and their perception Trump isn’t. How could I be a world traveler if I wasn’t a relativist?

[@guilhemc7329]

Have you heard of moral naturalism? Suffering and pleasure are physical phenomena. Pleasure is good and suffering is bad, by definition. Just like high temperature is hot and low temperature is cold, by definition. Good and bad are physical properties of the universey. Suffering is absolutely bad and pleasure is absolutely good. Therefore any action that causes suffering or pleasure loss IS bad. No matter the country, the culture or the person.

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

@@guilhemc7329 yup.

[@zzgrom]

@@guilhemc7329 Disagree. Suffering and pain can make one stronger and savour pleasure when the suffering ends - examples: failing a job interview; running a marathon; or losing a public debate. All pleasure (no suffering) suffers from the law of diminishing returns. There are many examples of actions that give immediate pleasure but lead to suffering and vice versa.

[@guilhemc7329]

Suffering can sometimes prevent greater suffering. You gave the example of failing a job interview, hiring the wrong person will cause more suffering than not hiring anyone (dissatisfied customers, terrible coworker experience, having to fire employees, etc...). Without realizing it you're staying inside the good is pleasure / bad is suffering paradigm. I don't see how you could escape this paradigm without it leading to repugnant conclusions.

[@johnrichards7147]

She should be careful when talking about contradiction, the example she gives is not actually a contradiction, it is perfectly consistent to believe that "a transcendent god created the universe" and believe "in the process of evolution", if she wishes to use this example it would be best to change the claims to "a fundamentalist creationist narrative" vs "the process of evolution by natural selection" as those two beliefs are truly contradictory it is impossible for them to both be true. The example given in the video is a perfectly consistent set of beliefs and should not be presented as inconsistent .

[@kevin.afton_]

Im sure thats what she meant she just wrongly expressed herself.

[@marcinkorneliuszw.3068]

john richards The church acknowledges the evolution of human body and actually, the big bang theory was created by a Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre.

[@odenpetersen6028]

Additionally, the law of contradiction only applies if one accepts the premise that moral statements have a definite, objective truth value - this is begging the question.

[@PrimalMiltos]

Obviously she implies the Adam and Eve type of Creationism to make her point nothing complicated.

[@cindigonzalez7350]

Alot of people dont believe in both

[@dreyestud123]

She definitely confuses a lot of things. Especially when making statements like "Murder is always wrong". There is a moral case for that and a legal case for that. For example if a wife murders her husband who is suffering from painful, incurable cancer. And her action is motivated by mercy and not malice. I suspect she would be sentenced differently than someone who murders another for money.

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

That is not murder, though.

[@frankgrijalva7019]

Euthanasia is morally wrong. If the wife (in your example) kills her husband out of "mercy", it's more for selfish reasons because she is not emotionally or mentally prepared for the suffering and rejects her marital responsibility of taking care of each other "in sickness and in health". Therefore she kills to avoid it all together? I believe the vow goes, "Until death do us part" and not, "until I kill you out of false mercy because I can't bear the mental and emotional anguish". Killing in self defense on the other hand is another story. If someone is trying to kill you and you are acting in self defense then it's justified and right because you are defending your life. :)

[@kirktizon8061]

Murder is very different from Euthanasia. She is correct in saying murder is always wrong.

[@mkmullackal]

your argument only strengthens relativism. taking life out of body is called murder in some context and euthanasia in other. Different perspective based on context.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

@@frankgrijalva7019 Killing in self defense isn’t part of moral absolutes, you’re arguing for relativism. Only light can stop hate and anyone can be redeemed.

[@joshuastephenward5316]

Relativism cuts it's own throat and subconsciously feeds our desire to cut our own throat in separating the currency of our own personal experience from the rest of the world. The French revolution had the guillotine to separate the heads of men. Today we have relativism to do that.

[@romanmarquez5205]

I hope she realizes that although her argument is extremely powerful and well thought out it is not nearly 100% holistic and that reason, no matter how universal it appears it should be, will still be relative to individuals for the foreseeable future. Ego is the obstacle any social argument - again, no matter how universal it appears it should be - has to overcome. Contradiction is something that people will always overlook, or, deny because of pride in the wanting to be right. People argue against others by asking for 100% irrefutable and repeatable experimental evidence of the - seemingly - intangible kind. This is the harsh territory ascribed to the world of deciphering human truths. I would consider myself an agnostic relativist, (I know, weird combo, right?) by the very nature of the statement "let's agree to disagree", because that statement says a lot about individuals and their lack of willingness to change based on the ideals of another. I would really like to 100% accept the truth of what she is saying and as a person, a physical living creature that feels pain and pleasure, I can believe there are truths of physicality that reach into interpretations of the social, but the ultimate interpretation of truth is extremely difficult to pin down. I admire her fervor and passion and hopefully she can articulate a further extrapolation in the future that can fill more gaps. I also cant explain my irresistible need to leave tangents... my bad! You did great kid!

[@michaelgannaway3386]

I am currently studying and was hoping to get a better definition of relativism - the dictionary basically states that relativists believe that the theory of relativity can explain the function of mass, energy, motion etc. my confusion was related to the idea that since Einstein the theories of string theory have made it clear that superposition (multiple states of existence) is a thing. After listening to this lady I am still confused.

[@agustinruizmoreno524]

Relativism is about having different points of view because we all think differently. So don't try to find yourself nor your ideas in others. Just keep introspecting, acquiring information and never stop learning. Nothing is true nor untrue, it all lays on perspectives.

[@theblindcritic5876]

A valiant effort at examining the nature of morality in modern society, though I would have liked her to have spent less time defining what the problem is via repeated examples and spending more time on what the resulting resolution of this disparity between the two ideologies could be, especially since she's interested not only in morality itself but also its application in the law. Her answer seems to be the imposition of moral absolutes based on geographic majorities but that 'feels' like a rather incoherent and unnatural solution. Either way, her explicitly stating so and explaining the implications for more than a minute or two would have been quite fascinating.

[@sudheerkumar4421]

Awesome talk..loved it!!!

[@postmanscott767]

Jordan Peterson would be proud of her

[@idrissahmat498]

Facts !

[@tararusful]

While I congratulate her for even talking about the subject, she completely misses the point of moral relativism. She's mostly fighting the "moral relativism" of the modern day left, which is definitely flawed. She should read up more on the topic but it's great that she questions her surroundings; we definitely need more people like that because there is just too many extremists all over the political spectrum right now.

[@looper2586]

thank you for not explaining at all what she misses though. That's as useless as a comment can get. So what's the point of moral relativism?

[@joanbro3375]

Us, the relativists, leave you alone. Then leave us alone

[@lefteris1976]

what an indecent rude judgemental sanctimonious pious arrogant tone of a talk. not surprised its a 10 year old speaker espousing 10 year old ideas.

[@troydrury12]

Yet, you didn't point out one substantive error in her supposed childish argument. Ad hominem much?

[@sudhirpatel7620]

Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌

[@JustMe-cs4nd]

DAMN! Nailed it!

[@CriticalThinker02]

Wow, I can’t believe TED actually let her speak!

[@CriticalThinker02]

@@msparkison Not because they don’t support free speech or free thought, but because they tend to only support/provide a platform for views that align with what Vanessa is challenging.

[@msparkison]

@@CriticalThinker02 before I read your explanation (Thank you for that), and giving my question additional thought in the context of the speech, I had decided to delete my comment. It was then that I read your response. Thank you.

[@CriticalThinker02]

@@msparkison No worries!

[@lesblase3667]

@@msparkison 🤣😂 don’t jump the gun again

[@malmalhi007]

I loved this talk

[@Trazynn]

Very powerful talk however I'm not sure where Vanessa is going with this: 15:30 I don't think cheating is wrong and I certainly don't see any problem with making provisions based on context. Being cheated on would hurt but I'd still acknowledge that person's right to do so. There are societies that do believe cheating is absolutely wrong and often punish it by stoning the person, nearly always a woman, to death. I hate moral relativism, but simply assuming that your stance on cheating is right and leaving it hanging there is a a dangerous route as well.

[@franklinfalco9069]

There is no relativism. Everyone thinks they have the world figured out and they don't need to learn anything else. No one respects anyone else's point of view.

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

2019 anyone?

[@Nimbereth]

Why these beast comments about what year are you watching this?

[@keyow2]

No, relativism is not reliant solely on the person, but rather relations to other things. Any quantitative value is easy to establish as relative. For example, a mountain is only "huge" relative to us. But relative to a planet, it's literally minuscule. Qualitative values are also relative. Let's look at an extreme example to ensure we don't get bogged down with several light examples. Say, Gravity. We know, objectively, Gravity exists as a natural force in the universe. But wait, I just said "objectively." Did I just admit to objectivism? Nope. Because that "objective" fact, is only the case RELATIVE to our universe. If the universe possessed different laws, or if it were a different universe altogether, Gravity may very well not be the case, or at least not be identical to the Gravity that we've established as a physical law in our universe. If something like Gravity can be used as an example of what's relative, anything can be used as an example. Relativism is the only way.

[@eternalcustomchannel]

If you were me you wouldn't have written or believed what you wrote in that comment...just because in our reality you aren't me, doesn't mean that it is objectively true that you aren't me...therefore we can deduce that thanks to relativism (and your fantastic logic that things COULD HAVE been different and therefore we cannot know what they ARE), we know that you may not have written that comment and you may not in fact believe what it says...also...I never wrote this comment so don't hold me accountable for it, I don't even believe it, relatively speaking

[@agustinruizmoreno524]

@@eternalcustomchannel I don't think you get his point. You are your perspective, nothing more. Truth is relative to each of us.

[@eternalcustomchannel]

@@agustinruizmoreno524 I don't think you see the fallacious thinking behind his argument...not necessarily his reasoning as per se, but the argument itself. Because things could have been different, we cannot know what they are objectively...

[@agustinruizmoreno524]

​@@eternalcustomchannel Well, you just described relativity.

[@eternalcustomchannel]

Agustín Ruiz Moreno so then according to you, you could have been me, therefore you cannot really know that you are you? You could have believed in the theory of objectivity, so you can’t really know if you believe in the theory of relativity?

[@DougBryanIndiemediator]

Relativism and Absolutism can both exist without contradicting the law of non contradiction. You have highlighted this false dichotomy. The Legal system uses elements of both, as well as other philosophies and religions too. With each law or social construct a certain value is representable for that idea. Some ideas win, and some ideas lose but all are in competition with a collective assigned value that is not concrete but subject to change with human evolution. The laws of human evolution are still at work with ideas ruling society. Mental genetics are known as Memetics, which explains how ideas are subject to survival or non-survival through the judgement of our synaptic weights. This idea of assigning value or trying to measure it is known as Utilitarianism, which is also a philosophy I believe is not ultimately at odds with Relativists nor those who believe in an Absolute Truth.

[@marcpadilla1094]

The ontology of morality is self.

[@ligidaykurin9106]

Brilliantly said

[@philistein6778]

comparing evolution & creationism isn't a moral argument...

[@martinbennett2228]

Moral relativists cannot even claim that they are right without contradicting themselves.

[@floridapepe]

It's not a contradiction if you believe morality is relative to an individual than it's not contradictory for said individual to express they're morality relative to them

[@floridapepe]

I think murder is wrong But I also dont believe in absolute truth so I cant say its 100 percent right and everyone should agree with me because it's just an idea I believe in

[@martinbennett2228]

@@floridapepe How can you claim that your statement is true?

[@floridapepe]

@@martinbennett2228 I cant I can only express my opinion absolute truth cant be measured so I can never definitively say something is true atleast when it comes to morality and the type of truth we are talking about

[@hemashreekrishnan7891]

Michael Fay didn't commit theft, he committed vandalism. Vandalism, littering, spitting are punishable offences in Singapore. Even chewing gum isn't allowed there.

[@HodsBroo]

Remarkable presentation!

[@The1WhoCares]

Can she run for president

[@GrammeStudio]

Of course a moral absolutist would sound so pompous and sanctimonious. How fitting!

[@fjdklsjfd]

excellent speech!!!

[@judyglentugbo1466]

very well said

[@ethandomaki5496]

UGHHGHGHGHGHGHGH Her first example alone made me want to rip my eyes out. Its so disingenuous to say that moral relativism is the same concept as having opposing objective facts exist. Also, most moral relativists don't believe that ALL beliefs are equal in value. Only radicals would even go to say that the belief that only the believer has the right to do anything they want, is on equal grounds as belief in the Golden Rule. A moral relativist would more likely say, that something like Hedonism, holds some weight, but is not completely out of the question despite bias against it. Moral relativism isn't acceptance of all beliefs, its tolerance of beliefs they do not hold themselves, and open-minded approaches to viewing them.

[@CathyKitson]

But if you are a genuine moral relativist, then surely all views are equal? If you don't think that, then you're not a moral relativist.

[@lesblase3667]

Go head,. Rip them out. They seem as if they’re not working anyway with them in. So why not. Maybe you’ll finally see after you rip them out

[@lesblase3667]

Bias? You’re bias you clown. You’re not neutral either so why we pretending? She’s obviously on the side of Right.

[@mamertoguingguing974]

Impressive. Courageous

[@maryannezeh129]

This is a good talk

[@stndsure7275]

I am not a moral relativist - but these are not terribly convincing arguments. It doesn't help that she consistently refers to moral relitavists fools - even though this includes many people otherwise considered to be among the smartest and most influential people of the last few centuries. Moral absolutism does not require or even imply a creator god - nor is morality applied to every action that requires a decision - such as evolution and divine creation.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

Moral Objectivism DOES imply a higher standard hence there must be some higher force dictating our morals

[@MrPabloguida]

I have a doubt. If, an American couple is caught kissing in public in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi justice system, in order to not succumb to moral relativism, they should arrest the couple like their law explicitly says?

[@simonpetrikov3992]

Pablo Guida yes.

[@MrPabloguida]

Really? Then I am sorry, but moral relativism is not the monster she is trying to picture. Let me try a different approach, what if a country governed by sharia law which states clearly that you can not abandon muslin faith because if you do you will be punished with death, according to you they should go on with the sentence and kill someone who have just converted to christianism just to not succumb to moral relativism?

[@simonpetrikov3992]

Pablo Guida Unfortunely yes. I'm not a moral relativist though because I reject morality being eaisly dissappering in the quantum wind as soon as it was formed. For the sake of argument in your example yes.

[@MrPabloguida]

Actually, for my previews argument to work as referring to moral relativism, I would addend that the person about to be executed for abandoning muslin faith in a country with sharia law, is a foreign muslin from a Islamic country who allows people to abandon muslin faith.

[@MrPabloguida]

Now that I corrected my argument, I have to say that moral relativism (in this case) is not only "not wrong", but I go as far as to say that it is the right position to assume.

[@markv7458]

Awesome!

[@faithfury2397]

everytime i typed "y" on my search bar and press enter , i always go to this video. I think im responible for at least 100 views.

[@robinwersich3424]

Ctrl+Shift+Alt+Entf is your friend ;)

[@camiloandresmartinezmonter228]

Well i get this is a child giving her opinions, but based in my morality all opinions must face the same treatment don't matter where come from. So she can give her opinion but is not free from being not criticed by me. Morality is kinda before than Pythagoras, actually that theory of moral realism already have detractors in his time. So its not true that relative is modern, actually modernity only had fixed the old theory, just as our modern evolution of theory fix some mistakes of Darwin. Now environment morality not solve the problem of universality, environment means a group of people not all people or worst all the universe, the moral code of the lines in X planet have nothing to do with us. So moral relativism or ethic relativism establish that right or wrong are human constructs, there is no bad or good without humans behind , so that means there is no good or wrong without humans, and we define what is wrong or good but that not means that they not exist. This is the typical problem of confuse two different things, meta morality with morality. Now the law of code is made based in what make a society stable, a society where kill is not punishable (see that not see if its immoral or not) its not stable. Lets put the vegan case, a society where animals are kill for eat is stable... well it is as long is members dont care about the animals killed, but if half of society are willing to die for stop the meat diet then that society is not stable.

[@ninjadarkside9423]

moral relativism vs. moral absolutism the very nature of you claiming something is wrong ...makes you a relativist by default ..checkmate

[@SlurpKing100]

I claim that the belief that the earth is bigger than the sun, is wrong. Does this also make me a relativist?

[@ninjadarkside9423]

@@SlurpKing100 objective reality doesn't care what you believe

[@SlurpKing100]

@@ninjadarkside9423 Thats right. So her simply claiming something doesn't make her right or wrong. The moral relativist view is that you can make a moral claim, and that it is then objectively true (replace you with culture, perpetrator or thinker or whatever type of relativism you subscribe to)

[@ninjadarkside9423]

Culture, language, morality,authority, idealism ect....are all forms of mind control . thats what a CONversation is ....you trying to sell me an idea ...and all ideas are subjective . this isn't a right or wrong think...then again thats my subjective opinion . When someone kills someone what do you do ? ...jail?, (taxation is theft) , capital punishment? ( isn't killing wrong? ) ..do nothing? (Let the person get away? ) Yes we can objectively create a moral framework...and when moral "truths" collide ...which one is right? ..they all are ...and all are subjective choices....solid, liquid, gas.....red, yellow , blue.....rock, paper, scissors ...

[@hegel5816]

Ah... Everything is philosophy until something happens to us...

[@lostdarkside]

Life is a subtle paradox....magnetic field

[@affiliationcode6865]

What n**** what ?

[@nathanraymond7525]

I’m a relativist and I love Trump. There are contradictions that exist.

[@Human_Evolution-]

Pytagoras tho

[@michaelmcclure3383]

Did she mean Pythagoras haha

[@menzikhayazulu3492]

This is just exciting 😊😎

[@marcosdelacerda9874]

This girl has got some intellectual wisdom

[@nicoletabonat117]

Wow you are amazing

[@educatingignorantintoleran3436]

This is a giant strawman.

[@Scias]

How so?

[@BlackPhillip-sw8xf]

In her argument about the woman being prosecuted because she was wearing the hijab. Does the lecturer realize that the same argument could be used by a secular state with Islamic bias (just like Turkey) to justify the prosecution of a christian wearing a bracelet with a cross in it? I doubt she would have this same line of thinking if that happened... Also, The hijab is not a religious symbol is more of a cultural one. And besides, even if it was, I've never seen a person in the occident being prosecuted for wearing a christian symbol like a cross necklace for exemple. It's incredible of how limited these people worldview are. I'm not criticizing her just because she is a girl. Sadly there're a lot of adults (mostly religious and conservatives) that think just like her.

[@arielvicentius4577]

I agree. Ad hominem at its finest, too.

[@eternalcustomchannel]

BlackPhillip2018 You missed her point...

[@XBLspartanx170]

so its a straw-man because she uses actual examples?!

[@matthewantonello5029]

terrible example of evolution vs inteligent design. they both can be true even though it is the same for all people

[@mas7937]

Because for now it’s a female thing and if men figured it out like them they will never settle down yo any female.

[@aaandromeda]

i really want to watch this because i'm very interested but the shouting to speak is overwhelming me

[@cramoissie868]

Moral absolutism: the king is gardening and he thinks that the world is like his vegetables.

[@sandollor]

She's either characterizing or missing some key points to moral relativism. Making the statement, "murder is wrong" is fine within the confines of a particular culture, according to moral relativists. What moral relativist is saying otherwise? I don't agree with such a rigid and obviously flawed ethical system, but there are moral principals within it that are true. Generally, well-done argument though, other than that issue I brought up and the wooden way she presented it. Getting better comes with time. She's probably a wonderful public speaker now, four years later.

[@sleepyjoebiden2756]

Smart and pretty my dream girl.

[@redlanez]

fbi open up

[@08lukin]

18 minutes of straw man falacies. This one should be called On How Not To Make An Argument.

[@joeldebrosse7653]

This girl is amazing

[@RalphDratman]

Area 51

[@j_5244]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -John 14:6 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. -Acts 16:31 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. -Matthew 3:2

[@beenz07]

I agree. Morality is non-existent. Moral error theory is consistent and all of the world is capable of embracing it.

[@anotherdroid493]

Good job on getting up there. However it’s a load of rubbish bordering on extremism. Why on earth did TED let this one through? I respect all the effort that went into this, and her willingness to express, I just hope it’s not coming from a place of indoctrination, and that she can find her own voice.

[@eklctc1Kng1arrw]

Thank the universe for the existence of minds such as yours. The comment section is full . It’s great that a young person is motivated. However, she (as well as many people) need to broaden their education

[@hiwhowhatareyoudoinghereme1974]

Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah humbug

[@jimsinister13]

Vanessa Smiley would bury Gretta Thunberg in any debate based in reality . good job kid .

[@maryplays996]

This makes no sense at all.

[@StarShadow9009]

Nice strawmaning

[@ArrivedOrc973]

Where?

[@Scias]

Why can't TED put on more talks like this instead of regressive bullshit

[@simonpetrikov3992]

Scias agreed. IKR.

[@piercetriboletti9453]

Scias she doesn't know what she's saying.

[@jinglejangle100]

Well, she has a right to think that way, but her very case sounds culturally shaped and bound. At least to me it does.

[@andrewf2630]

She's actually embracing social relativism and presenting that her understanding of cultural relativism is morally true, relativistic to all others who disagree.

[@ashleysmith2509]

The God of the Bible is the opposite of Relativism. The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

[@GrammeStudio]

well you better start choosing the right undergarment and stop eating shrimp and better not work on Sabbath then.

[@adamsmith4180]

He also doesn't exist

[@triad5766]

Gram T - Do you know not what the New Covenant is

[@GrammeStudio]

@@triad5766 do you not know what relativism means?

[@casperr1299]

Also calls for separation of church and state

[@karaa7595]

Shut up critics. She's not even 20 and grasping concepts most adults can't.

[@coldee785]

Grasping is a generous description of what she is doing. Aligning with your perceived truths perhaps, but grasping is not the case.

[@SteveAubrey1762]

This is the best Tedx Talks videos I've seen yet. MiF

[@katerinazieglerova4243]

Well this was very American of her ngl

[@peterg418]

She pronounced quite a few wrong incorrectly, which tends to happen when you are reading and encounter new words. So, she memorized someone else’s script. Please don’t turn kids into puppets.

[@andrewf2630]

She doesn't know that she holds and promotes relativistic positions. This presentation is a complete contradiction.

[@upendownlinker]

Hyper rational reddit atheists are seething.

[@mkmullackal]

if you dont agree relativism, soldier who kills should get equal punishment as of murder. Euthanasia should get equal punishment. She wrongly assumes relativism is always at individual level. Sometimes it can be at the level of a community, religion or nation. That is why euthanasia is legal is some countries while illegal elsewhere.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

A soldier SHOULD be called out for killing another human We should all love our enemies so war is always bad.

[@Stepthatway6]

Relativism can be true on some fronts, but somethings are and should be absolute.

[@smartjt]

Interesting presentation. Very insightful and inspiring

[@Damian-dv6qx]

If I had a daughter, I'd want this to be her. Incredibly impressed.

[@TurkPowers]

Very well done.

[@imnty97]

This is very on point

[@danilojrdelacruz5074]

Doesn't Absolutism also lead to a disintegrated society?

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

No.

[@dennisr.levesque2320]

You're screwed up. You keep saying that Relativism is something that it's not. You can't make an absolute out of relativity. It takes two to tango; it takes two to be relative. Don't try to impose your "absolutes" on someone who doesn't agree with you. Relativism tries to seek harmony, not domination. You can't be in harmony with yourself; it takes two. Don't agree with that? Well, can we agree to to disagree, or do you want fight about it?

[@zzgrom]

You just claimed an absolute out of relativity by stating "you can't make an absolute out of relativity". "It takes two to be relative" is another absolute claim. Same with "Relativism tries to seek harmony, not domination". A coherent response would be to say "I disagree but I cannot say why" rather than contradicting yourself by sprouting absolute claims. Better yet to recognise and accept that this universe contains absolute truths that transcend us.

[@aamemon7494]

Great and brave young speaker! But I would argue that your talk lacks alternative perspectives. What if we criticized the philosophy of moral absolutism? Would that not bring more moral questions? Who decides what is permissible and what is not? I agree that relying on an extreme is debilitating, and if you tried to flip the coin and defend did proponents against absolutism, that would really have strengthened your argument. Commendable attempt!

[@ReasonableForseeability]

She's not a proponent of absolutism. She just says that there limits to relativism. It's not binary.

[@disrespectfuldis4822]

great that she has smiled at the end

[@solinovo3219]

Moral Relativism: The only truth is that there no truths... oh.... wait

[@XBLspartanx170]

adultery should be felony, like this comment if you agree.

[@stst2321]

In the emerging knowledge society, the concept of knowledge no longer has to be approached with the conventional ontological claim to truth. Knowledge is seen today and tomorrow as a distinction in many respects and reference systems. Every subject or problem can today be constructed under very different and various references, and each of these constructions have their own meaning. Knowledge is primarily based on concepts, knowledge types, knowledge contexts, knowledge logics and knowledge fields. In didactic knowledge construction it is necessary to realize a solid relativism which assumes that teachers and learners have to reveal their reference systems and the underlying knowledge architecture (reference areas, relations, dimensions, knowledge logic, etc.).

[@beenz07]

Also, the U.S. legal code, to my knowledge, doesn't make claims about moral rightness or wrongness. Though it is founded upon utilitarian and retributivist philosophy, it doesn't make these declarations explicitly. Instead it creates distinctions about which behaviors will be punished based on those underlying philosophies. This was good though. It's nice to see a young person so closely attuned to philosophy.

[@The1WhoCares]

what is she 9

[@ratharos]

This girl still has a long way to go. She does not understand morality.

[@ChristianProtossDragoon]

She does... better than most.

[@eklctc1Kng1arrw]

She is either young (most likely) or not educated well enough. She does not realize everything around her is a bunch of constructs that are misleading her view of reality. Even adults (in great numbers in the western world) do not understand this.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@eklctc1Kng1arrw a bunch of constructs. Is this why Foucault, the post structuralists and Q-Theorists wanted to get rid of the age of consent for example.. because its just a construct. Moral Relativism often has no wisdom behind it and can be co-opted by any pathology.

[@KAH734]

The beginning is not really accurate, so I'm not gonna finish the 18min video. She's got courage though.

[@leodegario1]

Same

[@sams2572]

Is she conflating subjectivism with relativism? I agree great presentation though

[@nathanraymond7525]

I agree to disagree with this girl.

[@cooperpage2190]

She's got it all wrong. Just because someone is a moral relativist doesn't mean that they can't have their own moral opinions, and have an idea of what's right and what's wrong in our society. However, the belief is that we can't provide proof for an action being morally wrong, therefore it isn't objectively true. This is close to subjectivism, however I think that that misrepresents the perspective because we still believe that morals can exist and that we should follow them.

[@kirktizon8061]

that's the whole point. a relativist has their own rights and wrongs individually. the reason why you can't prove an action being wrong is the fallacy in relativism. she just showed you there is an absolute moral truth.

[@ziahd.2195]

Myyy, How old is this girl, 12, 13?

[@vahporn]

Moral Absolutes is too rigid for me. The principles that founded this country involved bondage of human beings being treated like livestock and subhuman. If the USA remained with the philosophy of moral absolutes, there would have been no progress in voting rights of women, civil liberties expanding to other races, child labor laws, fair treatment of people with disabilities (just to name a few). Moral Absolute does have some utility, like in the examples presented, but it does not warrant an all encompassing virtue to adopt.

[@CriticalThinker02]

Veronica Surratt I’d argue that it is actually moral absolutes that shifted the US away from slavery and over to equality and individual rights to all.

[@Stepthatway6]

@@CriticalThinker02 Exactly

[@Stepthatway6]

This opinion is misguided. The principles that founded this country led to the most individual liberty of any peoples of any time in history. The things you mention about voting rights and human beings being treated like livestock were not unique to the United States.

[@CriticalThinker02]

@@Stepthatway6 Correct.

[@Stgfre]

This woman is very educated, and very beautiful. This persuades me to some degree that there is hope for this world.

[@sowhat...]

she used the word anarchy incorrectly to mean basically chaos but anarchy basically means the lack of a slavery like ruler/master aka freedom. common misconception, it's only since very recently that I've digested it. by recently I mean a few minutes ago after watching Mark Passio lol