What is a right action?

[Sculptor]

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 exactly 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???

In other words, you are condoning what Hitler and other evil actors are entitled to do what they claimed as true and morally right.

NO

So it appear your definition of morality is whatever humans deemed to be true and morally right to do.

That is just s childish tautology.
Just as your own definition of morality.
"Whatever I say goes".

If not what is your definition of what is morality.

Note what is morality-proper [..I had defined earlier] based on empirical evidence within humanity is generally 'to promote what is good and avoiding evil'.

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?

In the same way you would.
But I would have the advantage since I would not be hampered by holding on to a lie that my way was the only objectively true way.
A lie they would not accept and possibly be insulted by.

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.

You are eeling your way around with very loose ideas of what is subjectivity, objectivity and morality.

Nope you got it wrong, it not a fact that humans insisted is it their moral right to commit the worse evil acts to others, their family, relatives, friends and humanity.

As always you are confusing objective with "true" and subjective with "false".
Go the fuck back to school!

Note Steven Pinker's argument, the trend that evil and violence has reduced relatively.
download/file.php?id=2950

Opinion.
Though Pinker likes to use evidence and has the veneer of empiricism he only offers "IS". ought are all about wishes.

[Skepdick]

You might be stupid enough to think that, yes.

You might be even stupider to think that I can read your mind.

But I don't care what you think.

You should. Because what I think, based on your obscurantism and avoidance, is that you are pro-genocide.

My answer is comprensive.
Nothing I said implied that.

It's not what you said. It's what you didn't say...

What you didn't say is "Genocide is objectively wrong".

I wonder why you are having trouble saying it... Maybe you are pro-genocide? Sure seems that way.

[Terrapin Station]

If you believe not-P then what implies that you should continue searching (S) versus not searching (not-S)?

Let's try it this way: in your view, if one believes that P, why would that imply to you that one would not explore the possibility that not-P?

[Skepdick]

Let's try it this way: in your view, if one believes that P, why would that imply to you that one would not explore the possibility that not-P?

In my view there is no such implication. You keep trying to insert one.

In my view "I am are exploring the possibility of not-P means exactly the same thing as I believe in not-P"
Exactly like "I am exploring the possibility of P means exactly the same thing as I believe in P"

To believe is to explore.
To stop exploring is to stop believing.

Beliefs are present desires about future states of mind. I believe that in the future I want to know if P or not-P. That's why I am searching!

But you really really really seem barain-fucked in your misunderstanding.

You ARE looking for a needle.
You ARE not NOT-looking for a needle.

What implies that you keep looking for a needle?

You keep insisting that it's NOT your belief that implies you keep looking. Fine.
What implies it then?

[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"?

You are very lost here.

What is crucial is we must define what is morality, i.e. morality-proper and not just tom, dick and harry's morality.

What is YOUR definition of morality?
It is because you did not provide a specific definition of what is morality that you are able to 'eel' and slide your way around.

I had defined "what is morality-proper" a "1000" times i.e. generally as morality-proper is about promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. ['terms' as defined].

Genocide is a moral issue.
Genocide is evil and is to be avoid in accordance to the definition of morality-proper.

That 7+ billion think genocide is wrong is not necessary objective, e.g. once almost everyone thought the Earth was flat.
But such a high majority will give us a very strong abductive clue that there is a high possibility of 'objectivity' on such a moral issue.

What is "objective" must be a FSK-dependent-fact, e.g. a moral fact that is objective, i.e. independent of individual opinions and beliefs.
I have already argued a moral fact is one that is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the moral fact of inherent ought_ness and inhibition in the brain of ALL humans, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.
thus
'no human ought to commit genocide.'

The above is how we differentiate genocide from the moral standard of no-genocide within a credible moral-FSK.
Note whatever is 'morality' must be qualified to a moral-FSK.

First, hasn't it been clear to you that I don't agree with a single sentence you type? Your views are a series of misconceived notions, misunderstood parrotings and incorrect conclusions that you repeat as infinitum in the manner of a telemarketing script, where you've shown time and time again that it's just not possible for you to go off-script. The simplest request to go off-script is met with befuddlement and condescension, and then you quickly go back on-script.

At any rate, morality consists of judgments/assessments/dispositions/etc. of interpersonal (where "a person towards themself" is a possibility), action-oriented behavior that the assessor considers more significant than etiquette. The judgments/assessments in question are of the nature of behavior being acceptable/permissible versus unacceptable/impermissible, morally good versus morally bad, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus prohibitable, and so on.

Agreement doesn't make it more likely that we're talking about something objective, because agreement in itself doesn't suggest that we're talking about something that's other than a mental phenomenon.

[Skepdick]

Morality consists of judgments/assessments/dispositions/etc. of interpersonal (where "a person towards themself" is a possibility), action-oriented behavior that the assessor considers more significant than etiquette. The judgments/assessments in question are of the nature of behavior being acceptable/permissible versus unacceptable/impermissible, morally good versus morally bad, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus prohibitable, and so on.

Agreement doesn't make it more likely that we're talking about something objective, because agreement in itself doesn't suggest that we're talking about something that's other than a mental phenomenon.

If the judgments/assessments/behaviours/actions/recommendations/obligations/prohibitions don't prevent your society from becoming extinct - your conception of morality is objectively immoral. Because it's self-defeating.

[Terrapin Station]

If the judgments/assessments/behaviours/actions/recommendations/obligations/prohibitions don't prevent your society from becoming extinct - your conception of morality is objectively immoral. Because it's self-defeating.

The extramental world couldn't care less whether we go extinct or not. Only we care.

[Skepdick]

The extramental world couldn't care less whether we go extinct or not. Only we care.

Correct. Which is why "objectivity" is never was about the "external world". It's about our relationship to and with the "external world".
"Objectivity" is a social construct, so it can never be about "mind independence".

Mass Extinction (the near-simultaneous death of ALL humans) is the most immoral thing that can happen to humanity and humans.

If you think that morality is not about that, but whether you are forbidden from farting in Church - you don't have a moral compass.

Morality is anti-entropy.

[Terrapin Station]

Let's try it this way: in your view, if one believes that P, why would that imply to you that one would not explore the possibility that not-P?

In my view there is no such implication. You keep trying to insert one.

In my view "I am are exploring the possibility of not-P means exactly the same thing as I believe in not-P"
Exactly like "I am exploring the possibility of P means exactly the same thing as I believe in P"

To believe is to explore.
To stop exploring is to stop believing.

Beliefs are present desires about future states of mind. I believe that in the future I want to know if P or not-P. That's why I am searching!

If belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that P means you believe that P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that P?

And if belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that not-P means you believe that not-P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that not-P, too?

And then what do you call that future state of mind? It's not a belief, which is a desire on your account, but a what? (Just curious if you do have a term for it.)

[Skepdick]

If belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that P means you believe that P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that P?

And if belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that not-P means you believe that not-P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that not-P, too?

And then what do you call that future state of mind? It's not a belief, which is a desire on your account, but a what? (Just curious if you do have a term for it.)

Why are you avoiding commitment? Nothing implies anything. You are the one speaking about implication so go ahead and answer my question.

WHAt implies that you keep looking for a needle, given that you don't believe it's there?

[Terrapin Station]

Correct. Which is why "objectivity" is never was about the "external world".

Or it's why if we're using "objectivity" to refer to stuff that occurs extramentally, morality isn't objective.

[Terrapin Station]

If belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that P means you believe that P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that P?

And if belief on your view is a present desire about a future state of mind, and exploring the possibility that not-P means you believe that not-P, then doesn't that imply that you have a present desire about a future state of mind that not-P, too?

And then what do you call that future state of mind? It's not a belief, which is a desire on your account, but a what? (Just curious if you do have a term for it.)

Why are you avoiding commitment?

Only interested in you answering the questions I asked there.

[Skepdick]

Or it's why if we're using "objectivity" to refer to stuff that occurs extramentally, morality isn't objective.

If objectivity is a social construct (it is), and morality is a social construct (it is) then Morality is objective.

[Skepdick]

Only interested in you answering the questions I asked there.

I am not interested in your question. I am interested in mine.

WHAT implies that you keep searching for a needle that you don't believe is there?

[Terrapin Station]

Only interested in you answering the questions I asked there.

I am not interested in your question.

Then we're done with this.