Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 4:02 am
Moral relativists are moral shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide on moral grounds.
Yeah, without any evidence, duh. It's a meta-ethical position. It doesn't entail any of this. Ask your favorite authority figures, the online AIs.
You can have a meta-ethical position about the ontology of morals and still hate violence, rape, whatever. Just as one can be a moral objectivist and love war, rape and so on.
There is a fundamental confusion about humans in your nasty insulting thesis. Humans can have incredible passion about their preferences without assuming they are objective. They can spend incredible amounts of money, time, energy and passion rooting for and even helping improve a local baseball team
without
ever thinking that that team is objectively morally better than other teams. Let alone the obsession of fans of professional teams.
How much more so they may fight for or against war or rape, as examples. People, all over the world, try to make things they way they prefer them to be. People who have a meta-moral position that is moral relativist are not barred in any way by that belief from passionately engaging in politics and moral fracases.
And moral objectivists, which include communists, woke people, muslims, capitalists, fundmentalists of all religions can be indifferent to many kinds of suffering, passionately engaged in reducing suffering, causing suffering and so on.
If we used your kind of logic I could say that people who believe in moral objectivism are all violent, cruel people.
That is the kind of logic you use when you fail to separate out factors in making your impolite, silly, not logically or scientifically arrived at insults.
But actually moral objectivists can be kind and have people's best at heart and they can be war lovers and justify rape. It all depends.
Just as realists can be many things.
Just as moral relativists can have many attitudes about war and violence and suffering.
This is all beyond the limited scope of your often hateful assertions.
Moral Objectivists [morality proper]
Oh, when it comes to your position, suddenly there is nuance. When it comes to other people's positions it is all or most and all of them have a tendency. But with you, you separate yourself out from most moral objectivists. This is hypocritical behavior.
mission is to take pro-active moral actions to prevent and develop moral competences within all individuals toward the future.
Must be pleasant to have such vague noble sounding tripe as a goal.
chatgpt on the subject - and note the irony, bolded below, that the moral relativist has a kind of FSK view of the different moralities. LOL
Not necessarily. Moral relativism is a philosophical position that suggests that moral judgments are relative to cultural, historical, or individual perspectives. However, being a moral relativist doesn't automatically imply indifference to injustice, violence, war, rape, or any other morally sensitive issues.
Individuals who hold a moral relativist viewpoint may still have strong personal values and ethical principles. They might recognize that different cultures or individuals have different moral frameworks, but this doesn't mean they condone all actions or believe that every perspective is equally valid. Many moral relativists still advocate for certain universal human rights or principles that they believe should be respected across different cultures.
It's important to note that people's ethical beliefs can vary, and not all moral relativists share the same attitudes toward specific moral issues. Some may be actively engaged in addressing injustices, promoting peace, and advocating for human rights, while others might adopt a more detached stance. The key takeaway is that moral relativism as a philosophical position doesn't dictate a specific behavioral response to moral issues; individuals will still have their own values and reactions.
