Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure

[Iwannaplato]

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,

And what if the Nazis had managed to carry it out without anyone outside knowing. Then it could only have been conditioned on the Nazi moral FSK, which would mean it was fine.

And of course this means that it was moral in VA's world of objective morality to leave newborns with harelips for the animals to eat, slavery, rape, etc. when the main moral systems, the FSKs, thought this was moral.

His faux outrage means nothing.

[Atla]

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?

He doesn't even try anymore. It's all in vain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You missed my point.

I did not assert "relativist deliberately condone" but rather moral relativists are indirectly complicit and indirectly condone evil acts since they either tolerate, respect or are indifferent to the moral views of others.

"Libertarian Moral Relativist" what is that??
You are conflating "morality" with "politics" or your personal opinions.
Politics [governance from the external] is independent of morality [internally driven].
Yes you have a legal, political, social, cultural, personal voices on the evil acts of other BUT as moral relativist [no objective grounds] you don't have a MORAL SAY [voice] on the moral views of others even though those acts are 'evil'.

"I react accordingly. I defend my rights to realize my goals."
That is a political or a personal move not a moral one.

If you do not condone the torture of babies as wrong, i.e. from a moral stand point then you are referring to some sort of moral standard [grounds] to judge 'torture of babies is wrong' which is effective moral objectivism.

As normal human beings you are likely to condemn "torture of babies as wrong" but if you a moral relativist, you can only condemn it based on a personal view, a criminal/legal, social but NEVER on a moral basis because by definition as a moral relativist you cannot do that.

You moral stance is critical because that will influence how you view moral progress within humanity.

[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?

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.

Are you implying Holocaust is not evil??

It is a fact all normal humans would agree 'Holocaust is evil' period!
It is the abnormal humans, i.e. the mental ill [extreme psychopaths and others] due to some defects in the brain that they drive them to insist the Holocaust is good.
Those who support these extremists are made temporary insane by the extremists due to various reasons, note the Milgram Experiments. It is evident by the fact that only those in command and directly responsible were persecuted for the evil of the Holocaust.

Do you agree scientific facts are objective??
They are based on induction and not based on 100% population certainty.
That 99.9% of humans accept genocide-of-the-other is evil is sufficiently objective as defined, i.e. it is not dependent on the belief of one subject.

[Flannel Jesus]

You aren't conditioning any of these statements on fsks, therefore you're wrong by your own standards. All truths must be condition on an FSK, that's what you've been saying for years now, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Are you implying Holocaust is not evil??

It is a fact all normal humans would agree 'Holocaust is evil' period!
It is the abnormal humans, i.e. the mental ill [extreme psychopaths and others] due to some defects in the brain that they drive them to insist the Holocaust is good.

Norms change, which entails, given your FSK system that if something evil becomes or was the norm, then it is objectively good. Slavery was the norm, so conditioned on the FSKs of the time, it was objectively good.

So, moral realists who do not have your system could make posts like yours.....

Slavery was objectively good, then!!!!!!!!
And enjoy a fit of faux outrage.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you implying Holocaust is not evil??

It is a fact all normal humans would agree 'Holocaust is evil' period!
It is the abnormal humans, i.e. the mental ill [extreme psychopaths and others] due to some defects in the brain that they drive them to insist the Holocaust is good.

Norms change, which entails, given your FSK system that if something evil becomes or was the norm, then it is objectively good. Slavery was the norm, so conditioned on the FSKs of the time, it was objectively good.

So, moral realists who do not have your system could make posts like yours.....

Slavery was objectively good, then!!!!!!!!
And enjoy a fit of faux outrage.

What kind of thinking is that??

I stated,
Whatever the reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity it is contingent to a human-based FSK [prefer FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

On the other hand a moral FSERC that rejects the holocaust [any genocide] would be supported by 99% of humans [majority] which is objective as defined.
Elsewhere I have argued the oughtnot_ness-of-no-human-killing humans is an empirical fact justifiable via the science FSERC.

[Flannel Jesus]

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

What FSK says that popularity among humans is the objective measure of an FSK?

And what happens if I reject that FSK?

[Iwannaplato]

Are you implying Holocaust is not evil??

It is a fact all normal humans would agree 'Holocaust is evil' period!
It is the abnormal humans, i.e. the mental ill [extreme psychopaths and others] due to some defects in the brain that they drive them to insist the Holocaust is good.

Norms change, which entails, given your FSK system that if something evil becomes or was the norm, then it is objectively good. Slavery was the norm, so conditioned on the FSKs of the time, it was objectively good.

So, moral realists who do not have your system could make posts like yours.....

Slavery was objectively good, then!!!!!!!!
And enjoy a fit of faux outrage.

What kind of thinking is that??

Exactly.

I stated,
Whatever the reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity it is contingent to a human-based FSK [prefer FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

On the other hand a moral FSERC that rejects the holocaust [any genocide] would be supported by 99% of humans [majority] which is objective as defined.
Elsewhere I have argued the oughtnot_ness-of-no-human-killing humans is an empirical fact justifiable via the science FSERC.

Notice how this moron didn't engage with my examples.

Coward.

Infant.

[Atla]

Are you implying Holocaust is not evil??

It is a fact all normal humans would agree 'Holocaust is evil' period!
It is the abnormal humans, i.e. the mental ill [extreme psychopaths and others] due to some defects in the brain that they drive them to insist the Holocaust is good.

Norms change, which entails, given your FSK system that if something evil becomes or was the norm, then it is objectively good. Slavery was the norm, so conditioned on the FSKs of the time, it was objectively good.

So, moral realists who do not have your system could make posts like yours.....

Slavery was objectively good, then!!!!!!!!
And enjoy a fit of faux outrage.

What kind of thinking is that??

I stated,
Whatever the reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity it is contingent to a human-based FSK [prefer FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

On the other hand a moral FSERC that rejects the holocaust [any genocide] would be supported by 99% of humans [majority] which is objective as defined.
Elsewhere I have argued the oughtnot_ness-of-no-human-killing humans is an empirical fact justifiable via the science FSERC.

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

[Iwannaplato]

[What FSK says that popularity among humans is the objective measure of an FSK?

And what happens if I reject that FSK?

Yes, what happens if you had rejected, for example, slavery, and the slavers said that it is an old instituion justified on the moral FSKs of the time. You would have been objectively wrong, since they would have been objectively moral in being slavers, their values conditioned on the moral and political FSKs of the time.

Yet, he blames moral antirealists for supposedly not being able to condemn the behavior of his fellow moral realists.

The irony escapes his untrained mind.

[Iwannaplato]

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

And he is missing the irony that his core argument to hurl bile at moral antirealists these days is to falsely say they can't and don't condemn the actions of his fellow moral realists.

Hey, you have to approve the evil my fellow moral realists do.

It's not just false, it's hysterical.

[Atla]

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

And he is missing the irony that his core argument to hurl bile at moral antirealists these days is to falsely say they can't and don't condemn the actions of his fellow moral realists.

Hey, you have to approve the evil my fellow moral realists do.

It's not just false, it's hysterical.

His lack of empathy is shining brightly

[Iwannaplato]

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

And he is missing the irony that his core argument to hurl bile at moral antirealists these days is to falsely say they can't and don't condemn the actions of his fellow moral realists.

Hey, you have to approve the evil my fellow moral realists do.

It's not just false, it's hysterical.

His lack of empathy is shining brightly

He has an us them rhetoric, where he paints the enemies in the worst terms he can come up with.
He can't seem to notice the parallels in style with the Nazis he supposedly abhors.

[Atla]

And he is missing the irony that his core argument to hurl bile at moral antirealists these days is to falsely say they can't and don't condemn the actions of his fellow moral realists.

Hey, you have to approve the evil my fellow moral realists do.

It's not just false, it's hysterical.

His lack of empathy is shining brightly

He has an us them rhetoric, where he paints the enemies in the worst terms he can come up with.
He can seem to notice the parallels in style with the Nazis he supposedly abhors.

Under different circumstances, VA would have made a great fundamentalist Muslim.

Also, fun fact: most people throughout history had little to no conception of the wider world. They had a conception of their tribe, their city, maybe their country, but hardly a conception of "humanity". So how can the moral FSEHDFKGHEFHXHNFOSEPONCVKLYDNCVKLRC-proper be about "humanity"?