What is a right action?

[Sculptor]

You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.

Hitler had strong moral reasons for believing killing 6 million Jews and million others was morally right!
That is your moral relativism.

True.
That is exacly right.
QED Morality is in fact subjective. That does not make ANY particular moral value "TRUE" or "FALSE", but that this is simply one example of a culturally subjective moral position.
What about that do you not understand???

If someone were to insist it is morally right to commit the worse evil acts to you, your family, relatives, friends and humanity, how would you counter that or has any basis to convince them otherwise?

And that is IN FACT the state of affairs that has pertained since the dawn of human morality.
When you understand that, you realise that morality is a thing you have to fight for.
It's pointless pretending that you are the only person that is right, and everyone else is wrong.

The big problem comes when people, like you, claim that their position is objectively true, much like Hitler claimed his idea to be objectively morally correct.

[Skepdick]

True.
That is exacly right.
QED Morality is in fact subjective. That does not make ANY particular moral value "TRUE" or "FALSE", but that this is simply one example of a culturally subjective moral position.

So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

If it's all relative, then genocide must be as moral as non-genocide.

What about that do you not understand???

What I don't understand is why you are lying.

And that is IN FACT the state of affairs that has pertained since the dawn of human morality.
When you understand that, you realise that morality is a thing you have to fight for.

So what is it that you are fighting for exactly? Are you fighting for; or against genocide?

If either one's fine then why do you have to fight for any of them?

The big problem comes when people, like you, claim that their position is objectively true, much like Hitler claimed his idea to be objectively morally correct.

Uh. No.People like me solved Hitler.

People like you keep insisting that his moral position was not objectively worse than my moral position.

[Terrapin Station]

So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

If it's all relative, then genocide must be as moral as non-genocide.

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

[Sculptor]

So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

If it's all relative, then genocide must be as moral as non-genocide.

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

Genocide is a moral issue. When you commit genocide you are making a morally questionable action. Thus genocide is moral, or it is immoral. It cannot be amoral.
Without context deciding not to commit genocide (non-genocide), is as moral as genocide.

[Sculptor]

True.
That is exacly right.
QED Morality is in fact subjective. That does not make ANY particular moral value "TRUE" or "FALSE", but that this is simply one example of a culturally subjective moral position.

So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

God help you and the people around you.
NO.
What I "believe" about genocide is subjective, ass.

[Skepdick]

What I "believe" about genocide is subjective, ass.

So are you then implying that genocide is not objectively wrong?

If the pro-genocide belief is subjective and the anti-genocide belief is subjective why do you have to "fight for morality"?

[Skepdick]

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

That's precisely what I am asking from the moral subjectivists.

In a reductionist world view all moral choices are subjective. It follows then (ceteris paribus) that there can be no criterion/grounds upon which to claim that anti-genocide is better (or worse) than pro-genocide. There can never be any dispute over pro-X and anti-X for any X.

All moral stances are morally equivalent up to subjectivity.

There's nothing more to be said. And yet you can't shut up about morality.

[Sculptor]

What I "believe" about genocide is subjective, ass.

So are you then implying that genocide is not objectively wrong?

No

[Terrapin Station]

In a reductionist world view all moral choices are subjective. It follows then (ceteris paribus) that there can be no criterion/grounds upon which to claim that anti-genocide is better (or worse) than pro-genocide. There can never be any dispute over pro-X and anti-X for any X.

The grounds are subjective grounds.

There are no legitimate disputes over whether anything is objectively right or wrong, but we can certainly try to persuade people to feel differently than they do, or to reach different conclusions than they have reached.

Subjectively, it isn't at all the case that all moral stances are equivalent, and the subjective realm is the accurate realm for morality.

[Skepdick]

What I "believe" about genocide is subjective, ass.

So are you then implying that genocide is not objectively wrong?

No

You want to use full sentences here?

One might think you a genocidal maniac...

[Skepdick]

The grounds are subjective grounds.

There are no legitimate disputes over whether anything is objectively right or wrong, but we can certainly try to persuade people to feel differently than they do, or to reach different conclusions than they have reached.

Did you bother reading the rest of my comment?

All moral stances are morally equivalent up to subjectivity.

There's nothing more to be said. And yet you can't shut up about morality.

If all moral claims are equivalent up to subjectivity, then how could you possibly "persuade" anybody to trade pro-X for anti-X or vice versa?

Subjectively, it isn't at all the case that all moral stances are equivalent, and the subjective realm is the accurate realm for morality.

That's tantamount to claiming that some subjective moral claims are better than other subjective moral claims.

Sucks to be you though, you have no grounds for "betterness" either.

On what grounds are you claiming that anti-genocide is "better" than pro-genocide?

[Terrapin Station]

That's tantamount to claiming that some subjective moral claims are better than other subjective moral claims.

Yes, of course they are. They better subjectively. That's the realm of "better."

[Skepdick]

That's tantamount to claiming that some subjective moral claims are better than other subjective moral claims.

Yes, of course they are. They better subjectively. That's the realm of "better."

My subjective betterness is better than your subjective betterness.

[Terrapin Station]

That's tantamount to claiming that some subjective moral claims are better than other subjective moral claims.

Yes, of course they are. They better subjectively. That's the realm of "better."

My subjective betterness is better than your subjective betterness.

Right. Obviously people prefer what they prefer.

[Skepdick]

Right. Obviously people prefer what they prefer.

Which leaves you with no grounds to claim the "betterness" of anti-genocide over pro-genocide.

Hitler and Stalin preferred genocide.
You don't.

Neither of you is right or wrong in your preferences.