Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not me invoking my own theory,
it is be definition within moral theory and the general consensus that moral relativists as in the above case "everyone everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist"

And this is where the fact that you base most of your knowledge on Wikipedia and AIs shows the holes in your knowledge. You may not realize this but Wikipedia can be wrong. There is a subset of moral relativists that has a similar metaethical opinion to other other moral relativists and then concludes paradoxically that one ought to accept other moralities, but that is a subset. And this has been explained to you before.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the Introduction of Moral Relativism,

Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

Notice the sometimes, toward the end. And then how most, but not all, OF THAT SUBSET, believe something close to what you are saying.

So, instead of merely trusting Wikipedia and universalizing your claim, you might want to ask any particular moral relativist you are communicating with if they hold that meta-ethical positions

instead of telling them what they believe or telling all of them what they believe. Or you can continue your incompetent and/or immoral behavior.

But in your other thread you not only aimed your idiocy at moral relativism but also at moral subjectivism.

In moral subjectivism EACH PERSON DECIDES FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THEY THING IS WRONG OR GOOD.

So, duh, a moral subjectivist does not 'have to' condone the holocaust or torturing babies or whatever idiotic example you gave. It is a descriptive, meta-ethical position, not a normative one. They are a kind of moral anti-realist explaining what they think moral propositions actually are. Not telling people what to do.

But you'll never admit any of this.

You did not read the discussion comments from AI?

Normative moral relativism deliberately claim one ought to respect and tolerate the different moral views of others.

But all moral relativists [subjectivists] are indifferent to the different moral views of others.
It because of their indifference that they are indirectly complicit and condone the evil acts of evil doers by not being proactive in preventing evil acts from the moral perspective.

They may agree with criminal laws to punish evil doers but that has nothing to do with morality and they are not wearing their moral relativist hat.
Rather if they condemn or punish evil doers they are wearing their political, legal, social hats.
A moral relativist has no critical moral voice [or moral say] at all on the evil acts of evil doers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Further, you idiot, I just checked Wikipedias original source for that statement.

In fact, the original source, an internet encyclopedia of philosophy is describing ONE
of the forms of moral relativism.

ONE OF THEM.

Later it goes on to note

g. Moral Relativism
Moral relativism has been identified with all the above positions; and no formula can capture all the ways the term is used by both its advocates and its critics. But it is possible to articulate a position that most who call themselves moral relativists would endorse.

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.

Notice that nothing their entials that one ought to or has to accept any particular behavior at all.

So, Wikipedia poorly quoted one portion of a better source and if you had the slightest ability as a researcher, you would have checked to see who and what was asserting what. But you found a quote in a mixed bag source and since it gave you something to hit people you are angry at, you used it. I suggest you learn to check your sources when you start making broad accusations. Of course this is asking you to post with integrity. One lives and dreams.

You're the IDIOT.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't believe a person who depends on AIs like VA does, and when accusing people of being evil or condoning evil so poorly uses poor sources, actually read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Skimmed it, maybe. Read quotes from it, sure. Used secondary sources to get an overivew, sure. But actually read it cover to cover, I doubt it. And if he did, well he's atrophied. So little integrity, even less than before.

[Veritas Aequitas]

g. Moral Relativism
Moral relativism has been identified with all the above positions; and no formula can capture all the ways the term is used by both its advocates and its critics.
But it is possible to articulate a position that most who call themselves moral relativists would endorse.

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.

https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g

The points 1 & 2 are the main theme common in all types of moral relativism.

It is because of "2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other" that moral relativists cannot judge, critique nor condemn the moral views of others.
As such, moral relativists [if they do not explicitly promote respect and tolerance] has to be indifferent to the moral views of others even though the moral views of others incorporate 'evil acts' [as defined].
As such, if the moral views of others comprised the acceptance of genocide, infanticide, and other evil acts as morally permissible, a moral relativist have no say on such evil acts within a moral perspective.

Personally they can condemn evil acts but only from their personal, political, legal, social, and other non-moral perspectives but they cannot condemn those evil while wearing the moral relativist hat.

Also, one should read the following:

Objections to Moral Relativism
Relativists Exaggerate Cultural Diversity
Relativism Ignores Diversity Within a Culture
Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable
Relativism Undermines the Possibility of a Society Being Self-Critical
Relativism is Pragmatically Self-Refuting
Relativism Rests on an Incoherent Notion of Truth
The Relativist Position on Tolerance is Problematic

[Iwannaplato]

I'm sorry, I've gone past a threshold. I consider VA a lot cause, hopeless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also, one should read the following:

Objections to Moral Relativism
Relativists Exaggerate Cultural Diversity
Relativism Ignores Diversity Within a Culture
Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable
Relativism Undermines the Possibility of a Society Being Self-Critical
Relativism is Pragmatically Self-Refuting
Relativism Rests on an Incoherent Notion of Truth
The Relativist Position on Tolerance is Problematic

[Atla]

But all moral relativists [subjectivists] are indifferent to the different moral views of others.
It because of their indifference that they are indirectly complicit and condone the evil acts of evil doers by not being proactive in preventing evil acts from the moral perspective.

They may agree with criminal laws to punish evil doers but that has nothing to do with morality and they are not wearing their moral relativist hat.
Rather if they condemn or punish evil doers they are wearing their political, legal, social hats.
A moral relativist has no critical moral voice [or moral say] at all on the evil acts of evil doers.

You're not just the idiot VA, but downright evil on this one. Well we can't expect more from you.

Are all moral subjectivists indifferent to the different moral views of others?

Not all moral subjectivists are indifferent to the different moral views of others. Moral subjectivism is the view that moral judgments are based on individual or cultural beliefs and feelings, rather than objective moral truths. This means that what is morally right or wrong is relative to the person or group making the judgment.

However, how a moral subjectivist responds to differing moral views depends on their personal approach to ethics:

Engaged Moral Subjectivists: Some moral subjectivists may actively engage with others' moral views. They might try to persuade others of their own moral beliefs, seek to understand different perspectives, or argue against views they find harmful or disagreeable. Even though they believe that morality is subjective, they can still care deeply about promoting their own moral standards or working towards a common understanding.

Indifferent Moral Subjectivists: Others may adopt a more indifferent stance. They might acknowledge that moral views differ and see no reason to engage with or challenge others' beliefs, as they consider all moral views equally valid within their respective contexts. For them, differences in moral beliefs might not warrant debate or concern.

Selective Engagement: Many moral subjectivists fall somewhere in between. They might engage with certain moral issues they find particularly important while remaining indifferent to others. They could respect the right of others to hold different views but still be concerned when those views lead to actions they find morally objectionable.

In summary, moral subjectivists are not necessarily indifferent to others' moral views. Their level of engagement depends on how they navigate their own subjective moral framework and how much they care about influencing or understanding others' perspectives.

[LuckyR]

The idea that a subjective reason to criticise, say the Holocaust instead of an objective reason equates to no reason, is somewhere between misleading and mistaken.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea that a subjective reason to criticise, say the Holocaust instead of an objective reason equates to no reason, is somewhere between misleading and mistaken.

What is objective is that which is independent of one person's subjective opinion.

It is a universal objective moral fact 'Holocaust is evil'.
Who [normal humans] in the world would volunteer to be "holocausted" or be killed and welcome harm, and violence to oneself?

[Iwannaplato]

The idea that a subjective reason to criticise, say the Holocaust instead of an objective reason equates to no reason, is somewhere between misleading and mistaken.

What is objective is that which is independent of one person's subjective opinion.

It is a universal objective moral fact 'Holocaust is evil'.
Who [normal humans] in the world would volunteer to be "holocausted" or be killed and welcome harm, and violence to oneself?

You need to reread what he wrote. 1) it's pretty clear and 2) your response does not relate to what he wrote. You simply reasserted your position on the objective immorality of certain things. He knows you are a moral realist. He was criticizing your position on something specific and you ignored this or did not understand it.

[Trajk Logik]

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.

https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g

The points 1 & 2 are the main theme common in all types of moral relativism.

It is because of "2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other" that moral relativists cannot judge, critique nor condemn the moral views of others.

Based on your own convoluted perception of moral relativism, wouldn't it be just as likely that moral relativists condone stopping the torture of babies and punishing those that do? If moral relativists acknowledge that people do good and bad things why would that mean that they condone only the bad things?

This is like confusing the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. Libertarians acknowledge that everyone has the right to do what they want EXCEPT when those acts interfere with the rights of others to do what they want. Anarchy simply acknowledges that everyone should do whatever they want REGARDLESS of other people's rights.

As a Libertarian Moral Relativist, I understand that morality is the relationship between one's (or a group's) goals and the how the actions of others either promote or hinder those goals. Moral acts are those acts that either promote (good) or hinder (evil) your goals. Actions that neither promote or hinder others' goals are not moral acts. They are neutral in regard to morality.

This does not mean that I believe everyone should hinder other people's goals precisely because that would mean that they are interfering with the rights of others to attain their goals. It means that I simply acknowledge what morality is - acts that either promote or hinder another's goals. I have goals. I live my life trying to attain those goals. When someone comes along and either promotes or hinders my goals, I react accordingly. I defend my rights to realize my goals.

[Skepdick]

Based on your own convoluted perception of moral relativism, wouldn't it be just as likely that moral relativists condone stopping the torture of babies and punishing those that do? If moral relativists acknowledge that people do good and bad things why would that mean that they condone only the bad things?

Eh? Relative to your relativism is your relativism less relative or more relative than my relativism?

Every relativist condones only good things!

Some relativists condone good things. Such as killing babies.
Other relativist condone good things. Such as putting an end to killing babies.

[LuckyR]

The idea that a subjective reason to criticise, say the Holocaust instead of an objective reason equates to no reason, is somewhere between misleading and mistaken.

What is objective is that which is independent of one person's subjective opinion.

It is a universal objective moral fact 'Holocaust is evil'.
Who [normal humans] in the world would volunteer to be "holocausted" or be killed and welcome harm, and violence to oneself?

Correction: it is your opinion (and mine, as it happens) that Holocaust is evil. The fact that you're forced to qualify [normal humans] demonstrates that there are exceptions to your stated viewpoint, thus it's not universally applicable and thus not objective, using the standard definition of the word.

[LuckyR]

The idea that a subjective reason to criticise, say the Holocaust instead of an objective reason equates to no reason, is somewhere between misleading and mistaken.

What is objective is that which is independent of one person's subjective opinion.

It is a universal objective moral fact 'Holocaust is evil'.
Who [normal humans] in the world would volunteer to be "holocausted" or be killed and welcome harm, and violence to oneself?

You need to reread what he wrote. 1) it's pretty clear and 2) your response does not relate to what he wrote. You simply reasserted your position on the objective immorality of certain things. He knows you are a moral realist. He was criticizing your position on something specific and you ignored this or did not understand it.

...or are unable to address it (while desperately clinging to your worldview).

[Flannel Jesus]

It is a universal objective moral fact 'Holocaust is evil'.

Where's all the "conditioned upon some FSK" malarky this guy likes to use to pad out his word count?

The Holocaust is evil, conditioned upon some FSK,

Which I guess translated to normal human English is, the Holocaust is evil, if you accept some FSK that says it's evil.

And of course for people who don't accept the FSK VA accepts, it's not evil (or if it is, it is evil conditioned on some different FSK). So VA is saying, it's a universal objective moral fact, for those of us that accept his moral FSK.