Hedonism & Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

And it doesn't bother VA that our tribal moral instincts from say 20000 years ago just lead us to perpetual conflict among tribes (nations today), eventually leading to nuclear holocaust. Cooperation with all other tribes isn't a basic moral instinct, unification of all humans into one tribe also isn't a basic moral instinct (unless the unification is done by force which again means nuclear war).

For example VA's "don't kill" principle is immoral bollocks according to his own morality-proper. The objectively-moral-proper principle is "don't kill, unless not killing puts your tribe at a risk/disadvantage".

As I had stated you're a philosophical gnat with kindi, bankrupt, shallow and narrow views.

1. All humans were "programmed" with the will-to-survive at all costs till the inevitable.
2. In addition, humans are also "programmed" with the more active ability "to kill" to meet 1 with killing for food and self-defense.
3. But humans were also gradually "programmed" with a lesser active moral function to modulate and ensure humans are not simply kill for the fun of it and with the sense of abhorrence on the killing humans by humans.

Our ancestors did kill others from different tribes and that is driven by the necessary Tribalism instincts then. But the inherent physical moral faculty exists and is at work.

The result is the net positive expansion of the human population to >8 billion at present.
Also there is a trend in the reduction of general violence:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Also note the reducing trend of Chattel Slavery from say 10,000 years ago to the present.

Yes, there is the potential of the extermination of the human species via cheap WMDs but note the inherent moral sense of Mutual assured destruction (MAD) which is getting more active within the consciousness of the majority.
This is in a way a moral fact that exists within human nature supported by its physical neural correlated which is related to the 'Not to Kill humans' moral fact inherent within all humans.

This is a moral fact as a Standard and Guide represented by its physical neural correlates. It is undeniable these are biological and correspondingly moral facts which can be eventually verified empirically.

That people do kill since long ago and at present do not obviate the existence of the inherent moral facts within all humans; that they do kill is due to its weakness or damage to these moral facts but those moral facts nevertheless exist biologically and morally. These facts are the inherent moral compass as Moral Standards and Guides ONLY not enforceable by external authorities.

[FlashDangerpants]

Anyway, that was fun. But VA is a wacko in exactly the way I described. He proceeeds from arguing that facts about the world are dependent on KFC-buckets to an illegitimate claim that nothing is required for a fact but a KFC-bucket.

[Iwannaplato]

Tell that to FDP the moral skeptic.

Wait, you think FDP thinks there are no, for example, deontological moral systems out there. No consequentialists. He thinks that when an ethnologist or anthopologist is talking about the morals of some group, he or she is talking about something that doesn't exist? You are fundamentally confused here.

It is truly unimaginably strange that after all these years and thousands of posts you still conflate the objective existence of morality, with any set of moral truths being objective. Unbelievable.

You talking nonsense and the above is not my view.

You just defended that view.

My point has always been:
Whatever is true, objective, exists, factual, knowledge, is contingent with a specific human based FSERC.
Thus my objective moral facts and truths are all in the same FSERC but in different contexts.

What you just wrote has nothing to do with the conflation issue.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Wilson "biologicized" ethics was a descriptive ethics, not a normative ethics.
You're continuing the same conflation as above.

You should check with AI.

I just did. It's descriptive. But find me a quote from Wilson, whom I've read where he says that studying the biology of morals will lead to the objectively correct moral positions. Obvious, in whatever wording he uses.

According to AI, Wilson "biologicized" ethics is both descriptive and normative.

If Ethics and Morality is coded in our DNA then it is an universal objective fact in that sense.

You're still conflating.

That the moral activities may varied according to different environment and conditions does not obviate the above inherent universal objective fact, i.e. this is a Substance versus Forms point.

Again, no one is denying that people have morals and believe in morals and often consider their own morals objective. No one is denying that. What they are denying is that you can work out via biology what is the correct set of morals or correct approach to morals.

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

Well, if you are right, then in the future perhaps experts will be on your side in some way. But that doesn't affect how, in your system, we decide what is objective.

You can't magically, even in your own epistemology, say that in the future my position will be more objective because THEN expert intersubjective consensus will be on my side.

I had defined what is objective as grounded on a universal human-based FSERC.

And that would have to be a currently existing one in the form that its in. Unless you are making psychic claims you don't get to say the current FSERCs are less correct than the one that is coming.

When in the future it is biological determined what is morally objective within a science compatible moral FSERC this knowledge will be universally applicable as an objective GUIDE and STANDARD for the well being of humanity.

Tell me an FSERC where expert consensus is that VA knows what the future consensus will be.

Analogy:
When scientists discovered the most critical vitamins for every humans are vitamin D, B12, and iron, that is an objective biological fact which is a STANDARD and GUIDE for all human to comply with.
Humans has the freewill to deplete their vitamin D, B12, and iron and face the inevitable consequences, but that does not obviate the objective biological fact as the STANDARD and GUIDE.

And your moral system has specific assumptions about what priorities we should have. Other moral systems do not share the same priorities. If you say that whatever morals we have SHOULD prioritize health, this is in a world where others will not support YOUR should. You can then say that science says that its healthier not to X. And they will point out that you are being circular.

The above analogy is the same with objective moral facts.
The problem with objective moral facts is they are not so obvious at present [not so developed knowledge and intelligence] because morality is a late evolutionary adaptations.
But we will get to it soon.

Again, this means that currect FSERC's do not support your position or you would not have to say 'in the future they will'.

So, this means that for some reason we should accept the VA is the prognosticator of future consensus FSERC positions on morality.

This is VA's intuition FSERC, one that does not have intersubjective support.

Btw, E.O. Wilson's views are merely a pointer to the future, the actual state is more complex and varied than that.

Then don't use him.

[Iwannaplato]

Anyway, that was fun. But VA is a wacko in exactly the way I described. He proceeeds from arguing that facts about the world are dependent on KFC-buckets to an illegitimate claim that nothing is required for a fact but a KFC-bucket.

It stuns me that even when it is pointed out he can't see that he is betraying his own system when he
VA
predicts what future FSERCs will say.
This means that he can ignore current FSERCs since he 'knows' what the future ones will be.
This utterly undermines his entire FSERC system.

Random people on the internet can ignore current intersubjective, expert consensus, by predicting what future consensus will be.

[Atla]

And it doesn't bother VA that our tribal moral instincts from say 20000 years ago just lead us to perpetual conflict among tribes (nations today), eventually leading to nuclear holocaust. Cooperation with all other tribes isn't a basic moral instinct, unification of all humans into one tribe also isn't a basic moral instinct (unless the unification is done by force which again means nuclear war).

For example VA's "don't kill" principle is immoral bollocks according to his own morality-proper. The objectively-moral-proper principle is "don't kill, unless not killing puts your tribe at a risk/disadvantage".

As I had stated you're a philosophical gnat with kindi, bankrupt, shallow and narrow views.

1. All humans were "programmed" with the will-to-survive at all costs till the inevitable.
2. In addition, humans are also "programmed" with the more active ability "to kill" to meet 1 with killing for food and self-defense.
3. But humans were also gradually "programmed" with a lesser active moral function to modulate and ensure humans are not simply kill for the fun of it and with the sense of abhorrence on the killing humans by humans.

Our ancestors did kill others from different tribes and that is driven by the necessary Tribalism instincts then. But the inherent physical moral faculty exists and is at work.

The result is the net positive expansion of the human population to >8 billion at present.
Also there is a trend in the reduction of general violence:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Also note the reducing trend of Chattel Slavery from say 10,000 years ago to the present.

Yes, there is the potential of the extermination of the human species via cheap WMDs but note the inherent moral sense of Mutual assured destruction (MAD) which is getting more active within the consciousness of the majority.
This is in a way a moral fact that exists within human nature supported by its physical neural correlated which is related to the 'Not to Kill humans' moral fact inherent within all humans.

This is a moral fact as a Standard and Guide represented by its physical neural correlates. It is undeniable these are biological and correspondingly moral facts which can be eventually verified empirically.

That people do kill since long ago and at present do not obviate the existence of the inherent moral facts within all humans; that they do kill is due to its weakness or damage to these moral facts but those moral facts nevertheless exist biologically and morally. These facts are the inherent moral compass as Moral Standards and Guides ONLY not enforceable by external authorities.

MAD was not an issue before the 20th century, therefore we have no such inherent moral sense. According to your objective-morality-proper, we just continue with blind tribalism, and if that leads to nuclear holocaust (it will), then that's that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Anyway, that was fun. But VA is a wacko in exactly the way I described. He proceeeds from arguing that facts about the world are dependent on KFC-buckets to an illegitimate claim that nothing is required for a fact but a KFC-bucket.

It stuns me that even when it is pointed out he can't see that he is betraying his own system when he
VA
predicts what future FSERCs will say.
This means that he can ignore current FSERCs since he 'knows' what the future ones will be.
This utterly undermines his entire FSERC system.

Random people on the internet can ignore current intersubjective, expert consensus, by predicting what future consensus will be.

He left himself no choice. For years he claimed that fact is just an opinion justified to a certain level out of 100 due to the "credibility" of the KFC-bucket that asserts it. The "credibility" (also out of 100) is a factor of the influence of the KFC-bucket, subject to some special KFC-bucket that rates all the buckets and is itself compiled by a group of experts who rate all the buckets (out of 100)....

But that makes morality-proper quite worthless. Even he can see that his own KFC-bucket is not influential and thus none of its fact claims is credible.

So he just decided to have "confidence" that one day his morality-proper KFC-bucket would be universally approved and by that bandwagon transformation it would therefore become a source of facts, and therefore it is actually facts already.

He is a complete Whacko McWack Job. All of his claims for today are predicated on some future generation coming to understand that he is the greatest living philosopher. All he needs to add is a few lines saying "in the time when this was written" to complete his transformation.

[Iwannaplato]

But that makes morality-proper quite worthless. Even he can see that his own KFC-bucket is not influential and thus none of its fact claims is credible.

Yes, this has been pointed out to him many times.

He could have presented his ideas in a different way, but retained the core. Then he could speculate about trends, but keep it clear he is speculating. Given his epistemology he has to accept that current expert opinions determine objectivity. But as long as he made it clear he was speculating, then he could speculate about what might happen. But he wants that to be taken as objective, which by his definition it is not.

This has also been pointed out in relation to the past. Slavery was objectively moral. Now it isn't. Any appeal to some other time as having the objective morality messes his system up. But it is a tactic in the moment.

Again: The amazing thing is that we actually understand his positions better than he does. We have actually read and paid attention and when he grabs any tool, quote, article, AI argument when putting out fires, we immediately notice the contradictions. He does not notice them and then, for no good reason at all, digs in and defends them.

Many people do this kind of thing and probably in private interpersonal relations we all do it at least once in a great while. But he's unique, to my mind, in philosophy forums.

[FlashDangerpants]

But that makes morality-proper quite worthless. Even he can see that his own KFC-bucket is not influential and thus none of its fact claims is credible.

Yes, this has been pointed out to him many times.

He could have presented his ideas in a different way, but retained the core.

That might depend on what the core of it is. For you and I, that would be something to do with a true accounting for how morality does work, or else a good solution for the ways in which some might want to reform it.

For VA, he needs to elevate morality to the level of a science so that he proclaim as scientific moral fact that Islam is evil. That's always been the point of what he does.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Tell that to FDP the moral skeptic.

Wait, you think FDP thinks there are no, for example, deontological moral systems out there. No consequentialists. He thinks that when an ethnologist or anthopologist is talking about the morals of some group, he or she is talking about something that doesn't exist? You are fundamentally confused here.

Of course, FDP will accept there are theists [God exists as real] out there. But personally he would not accept God exists as a real fact.
Same with morality, FDP do not accept moral facts exist as real on a personal basis.

It is truly unimaginably strange that after all these years and thousands of posts you still conflate the objective existence of morality, with any set of moral truths being objective. Unbelievable.

You talking nonsense and the above is not my view.

You just defended that view.

My point has always been:
Whatever is true, objective, exists, factual, knowledge, is contingent with a specific human based FSERC.
Thus my objective moral facts and truths are all in the same FSERC but in different contexts.

What you just wrote has nothing to do with the conflation issue.

Why not?
In this context I agree with the objective existence of morality and at the same time moral truth are objective as contingent within the moral FSERC.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Wilson "biologicized" ethics was a descriptive ethics, not a normative ethics.
You're continuing the same conflation as above.

You should check with AI.

I just did. It's descriptive. But find me a quote from Wilson, whom I've read where he says that studying the biology of morals will lead to the objectively correct moral positions. Obvious, in whatever wording he uses.

According to AI, Wilson "biologicized" ethics is both descriptive and normative.

It is self-explanatory.
I have the vitamin analogy [see below], i.e. when scientists discovered vitamims D, B12 and iron are critical to human life [universal] as a biological fact - a normative. That is accepted as a STANDARD and GUIDE to all to comply. This is represented by the relevant physical correlates.
If some people do not comply with the standard and guides, that their discretion and will have face the consequences.
That they do not comply for whatever reasons does not obviate the actual existence of those biological facts within their human nature as with the universal normative.

It is the same with biological-moral facts.
Once verified empirically they are deemed to be moral facts to be used as moral Standard and Guides.
This is self-explanatory without the need for E.O. Wilson to assert it. I am sure if I were to search in his book there will be indication of this obvious point.

If Ethics and Morality is coded in our DNA then it is an universal objective fact in that sense.

You're still conflating.

I don't understand. You have to more be clear.

That the moral activities may varied according to different environment and conditions does not obviate the above inherent universal objective fact, i.e. this is a Substance versus Forms point.

Again, no one is denying that people have morals and believe in morals and often consider their own morals objective. No one is denying that. What they are denying is that you can work out via biology what is the correct set of morals or correct approach to morals.

Re the analogy above, biology can work out that vitamins D, B12 and iron are the most critical, plus other essential nutrients are necessary for well being.
It is the same with moral facts discovered via biology that are universal to all human to be used a Standard and Guides to support a well being of the individuals.

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

Well, if you are right, then in the future perhaps experts will be on your side in some way. But that doesn't affect how, in your system, we decide what is objective.

You can't magically, even in your own epistemology, say that in the future my position will be more objective because THEN expert intersubjective consensus will be on my side.

I had defined what is objective as grounded on a universal human-based FSERC.

And that would have to be a currently existing one in the form that its in. Unless you are making psychic claims you don't get to say the current FSERCs are less correct than the one that is coming.

I have discussed a rating system for any FSERC.
As I had always asserted, the moral FSERC established must have as near credibility and objectivity [say 80/100] with the gold standard indexed at 100/100.
If it is psychic it would be in the range of 1-5/100 thus easily exposed.

When in the future it is biological determined what is morally objective within a science compatible moral FSERC this knowledge will be universally applicable as an objective GUIDE and STANDARD for the well being of humanity.

Tell me an FSERC where expert consensus is that VA knows what the future consensus will be.

The future can be predicted with a reliable prediction FSERC based on the rating system I mentioned.

Analogy:
When scientists discovered the most critical vitamins for every humans are vitamin D, B12, and iron, that is an objective biological fact which is a STANDARD and GUIDE for all human to comply with.
Humans has the freewill to deplete their vitamin D, B12, and iron and face the inevitable consequences, but that does not obviate the objective biological fact as the STANDARD and GUIDE.

And your moral system has specific assumptions about what priorities we should have. Other moral systems do not share the same priorities. If you say that whatever morals we have SHOULD prioritize health, this is in a world where others will not support YOUR should. You can then say that science says that its healthier not to X. And they will point out that you are being circular.

We will work on the obvious.
Who will deny the potential of a nuclear holocaust is most critical? We should be able to get consensus of the 99.99% of normal humans on this view.
It is the same with homicides, rapes, genocides, slavery, and others where it is easy to rate them as of the highest priorities and to get consensus.
Those that are not easily agreed upon can be trashed to arrive at consensus, it is likely they are not critical compared the above.

The above analogy is the same with objective moral facts.
The problem with objective moral facts is they are not so obvious at present [not so developed knowledge and intelligence] because morality is a late evolutionary adaptations.
But we will get to it soon.

Again, this means that current FSERC's do not support your position or you would not have to say 'in the future they will'.

There will be a theoretical moral model with high practical potential but the psychological states of the majority are present do not permit it to be realized.
As such, we have to work on the majority's moral functions to activate them with higher competency in the future so that they can be highly moral naturally and spontaneously.

So, this means that for some reason we should accept the VA is the prognosticator of future consensus FSERC positions on morality.
This is VA's intuition FSERC, one that does not have intersubjective support.

My moral FSERC will be complete and efficient based on FSERC which is by default intersubjective. It just do not have the support of the majority at present due to their psychological states which is more suited to God's moral dictates.

Btw, E.O. Wilson's views are merely a pointer to the future, the actual state is more complex and varied than that.

Then don't use him.

Wilson give the biological direction where there are more details to be considered.
If not, humanity will be merely stuck with philosophical debates on the purely abstract with no relation to the empirical world.

For example, in the past, the well being of the majority of humans are left to the will of God, faith and hope, but then biology now tell us, take the discovered essentials for the individual[s] well being.
It is the same with morality, in the past it was God's moral dictates, but the future morality [Standards and Guides only] will depend on the secular sciences supported by empirical evidences.

[FlashDangerpants]

When he covers too much of his theory in the same post it really brings home how stupid it all is when you add up all the pieces to form a whole.

[CIN]

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong.

Clarification, please. Which 'you' do you think I'm 100% sure is wrong? IWP? You (CIN)? Or just everyone else?

Me, certainly. That was clear from your attitude when we discussed my naturalist/hedonist/objectivist theory. You displayed total subjective certainty in almost all of your replies.

And objectivists generally. Do you deny that you have many times stated as a fact that objectivism is wrong? Yet as far as I know, you have never provided either argument or evidence to support this view. (I hope you understand that however many individual objectivist theoríes you successfully refute, this will never amount to a refutation of objectivism per se.)

You could perhaps take a leaf out of Flash's book. He clearly doesn't agree with me, but he gives my theory a fair hearing. I'm sorry, but I don't think you ever really have. The reason I pulled out of our debate last year was that I found myself typing 'strawman' so often that I was forced to the conclusion that, for whatever reason, you were incapable of reading my posts as written.

It gives me no pleasure to say any of this, because you strike me as a thoroughly decent guy whose normative ethics are very similar to my own. However, I think your entire attitude to objectivism rests on nothing but a kind of irrational prejudice, and as far as I can tell this is something you have not only failed to notice in yourself, but are quite possibly incapable of noticing. There is, of course, a simple way in which you can refute this charge, and that is by presenting a sound argument that refutes objectivism per se. You have no idea how earnestly I wish you would do this.

I'm sorry if all of this angers you, but you asked me for clarification, and I have done my best to give it.

I might make one further point. There is another respect in which you and VA are similar. You have told me that you think objectivism is pernicious. VA has said that subjectivists must necessarily be tolerant of certain evils (I think he may have mentioned rape and torture). Both of you are making the same mistake, which is to attribute particular normative attitudes to people on the basis of their views on meta-ethics. This is impossible, because meta-ethical theories are normatively neutral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong.

Clarification, please. Which 'you' do you think I'm 100% sure is wrong? IWP? You (CIN)? Or just everyone else?

Me, certainly. That was clear from your attitude when we discussed my naturalist/hedonist/objectivist theory. You displayed total subjective certainty in almost all of your replies.

And objectivists generally. Do you deny that you have many times stated as a fact that objectivism is wrong? Yet as far as I know, you have never provided either argument or evidence to support this view. (I hope you understand that however many individual objectivist theoríes you successfully refute, this will never amount to a refutation of objectivism per se.)

You could perhaps take a leaf out of Flash's book. He clearly doesn't agree with me, but he gives my theory a fair hearing. I'm sorry, but I don't think you ever really have. The reason I pulled out of our debate last year was that I found myself typing 'strawman' so often that I was forced to the conclusion that, for whatever reason, you were incapable of reading my posts as written.

It gives me no pleasure to say any of this, because you strike me as a thoroughly decent guy whose normative ethics are very similar to my own. However, I think your entire attitude to objectivism rests on nothing but a kind of irrational prejudice, and as far as I can tell this is something you have not only failed to notice in yourself, but are quite possibly incapable of noticing. There is, of course, a simple way in which you can refute this charge, and that is by presenting a sound argument that refutes objectivism per se. You have no idea how earnestly I wish you would do this.

I'm sorry if all of this angers you, but you asked me for clarification, and I have done my best to give it.

I might make one further point. There is another respect in which you and VA are similar. You have told me that you think objectivism is pernicious. VA has said that subjectivists must necessarily be tolerant of certain evils (I think he may have mentioned rape and torture). Both of you are making the same mistake, which is to attribute particular normative attitudes to people on the basis of their views on meta-ethics. This is impossible, because meta-ethical theories are normatively neutral.

At times PH's response is irritating [nevertheless a gentleman] but I am not too overly concern with PH's responses because regardless of whatever, I have benefitted from the exchange for my self interest in the expansion of my knowledge on Ethics.

Re my point re Moral Relativism [not so much moral subjectivism], there is an obligation to tolerate the 'moral' views of others.

You seem to be ignorant of this:

Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement.
Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that moral judgments contain an (implicit or explicit) indexical such that, to the extent they are truth-apt, their truth-value changes with context of use.[1][2]
Normative moral relativism holds that everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[3]
Though often intertwined, these are distinct positions. Each can be held independently of the others.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

From the above, it is not philosophical merely to confine Moral Relativism to Meta-Ethics only.

If anyone were strictly to restrict Ethics to merely Meta-Ethics exclusively, I won't be interested in discussing. If you had specified that term earlier, I would have not bothered to respond to your posts.

[Atla]

Imo what you need to understand is that many males are fairly good at logic, some are mediocre and some are bad. But VA seems to be the very rare exception who 100% can't process logic at all, and that's really strange. So he says stuff like this:

Re my point re Moral Relativism [not so much moral subjectivism], there is an obligation to tolerate the 'moral' views of others.

You seem to be ignorant of this:

Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement.
Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that moral judgments contain an (implicit or explicit) indexical such that, to the extent they are truth-apt, their truth-value changes with context of use.[1][2]
Normative moral relativism holds that everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[3]
Though often intertwined, these are distinct positions. Each can be held independently of the others.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

We use logic in order to not mix up the broader concept (moral relativism) with particular attitudes within it (that one mustn't necessarily hold to still be a relativist). He can't do that, there is no structure in his thinking anywhere, everything just blends together for him. You have to use ChatGPT to spell out to him how things relate, otherwise he won't even believe it. For example

Yes, someone can be a moral relativist without endorsing Normative Moral Relativism. Moral relativism, broadly speaking, is the view that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals. However, Normative Moral Relativism specifically holds that we should tolerate other moral systems because no one system is universally better. A person could accept that moral beliefs vary and have no absolute truth (Descriptive Moral Relativism) without believing we ought to be tolerant of all moral perspectives (which is a normative stance). Thus, they can acknowledge the relativity of morals without prescribing tolerance as a moral obligation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Imo what you need to understand is that many males are fairly good at logic, some are mediocre and some are bad. But VA seems to be the very rare exception who 100% can't process logic at all, and that's really strange. So he says stuff like this:

Re my point re Moral Relativism [not so much moral subjectivism], there is an obligation to tolerate the 'moral' views of others.

You seem to be ignorant of this:

Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement.
Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that moral judgments contain an (implicit or explicit) indexical such that, to the extent they are truth-apt, their truth-value changes with context of use.[1][2]
Normative moral relativism holds that everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[3]
Though often intertwined, these are distinct positions. Each can be held independently of the others.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

We use logic in order to not mix up the broader concept (moral relativism) with particular attitudes within it (that one mustn't necessarily hold to still be a relativist). He can't do that, there is no structure in his thinking anywhere, everything just blends together for him. You have to use ChatGPT to spell out to him how things relate, otherwise he won't even believe it. For example

Yes, someone can be a moral relativist without endorsing Normative Moral Relativism. Moral relativism, broadly speaking, is the view that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals. However, Normative Moral Relativism specifically holds that we should tolerate other moral systems because no one system is universally better. A person could accept that moral beliefs vary and have no absolute truth (Descriptive Moral Relativism) without believing we ought to be tolerant of all moral perspectives (which is a normative stance). Thus, they can acknowledge the relativity of morals without prescribing tolerance as a moral obligation.

I have stated before, there is nothing stopping anyone from being a pure theorist.

But philosophically, morality is inherently practical, thus to deliberately avoid the practical and merely stuck to theory only is not wise.

Thus, they can acknowledge the relativity of morals without prescribing tolerance as a moral obligation.

But then indifference in not prescribing and doing anything to prevent evil is also bad.

[Atla]

Imo what you need to understand is that many males are fairly good at logic, some are mediocre and some are bad. But VA seems to be the very rare exception who 100% can't process logic at all, and that's really strange. So he says stuff like this:

Re my point re Moral Relativism [not so much moral subjectivism], there is an obligation to tolerate the 'moral' views of others.

You seem to be ignorant of this:

We use logic in order to not mix up the broader concept (moral relativism) with particular attitudes within it (that one mustn't necessarily hold to still be a relativist). He can't do that, there is no structure in his thinking anywhere, everything just blends together for him. You have to use ChatGPT to spell out to him how things relate, otherwise he won't even believe it. For example

Yes, someone can be a moral relativist without endorsing Normative Moral Relativism. Moral relativism, broadly speaking, is the view that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals. However, Normative Moral Relativism specifically holds that we should tolerate other moral systems because no one system is universally better. A person could accept that moral beliefs vary and have no absolute truth (Descriptive Moral Relativism) without believing we ought to be tolerant of all moral perspectives (which is a normative stance). Thus, they can acknowledge the relativity of morals without prescribing tolerance as a moral obligation.

I have stated before, there is nothing stopping anyone from being a pure theorist.

But philosophically, morality is inherently practical, thus to deliberately avoid the practical and merely stuck to theory only is not wise.

See, he didn't understand at all what I explained above.