Good

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists and Subjectivists by definition has to respect, tolerate and be indifferent to the 'morality' of Hitler, Hamas [good to kill all Jews] and all evil doers without question since they [as moral subjectivists] do not have any fixed moral objectives to contrast and critique the evil doers and their morality.

This is, for the millionth time, false.
Where would 'has to' come from? They are not beholden to what is essentially a deontological rule.........................obviously
As humans who have no reason not to feel, for example, empathy', they can and do object to all sorts of behavior and policies that they see as harming people.

The only thing they cannot do, without being hypocritical, is to claim that how they want the world is objective more moral. That's it.

They can vote, fight against certain laws, fight against political and social programs and behavior they dislike, just like anyone else.

You can keep saying this and I am sure you will since you are immune from reevaluation, but it is false, and actually shows that you do not understand what the positions you dislike entail. 'has to' lol.

Did you read the view from AI above?

IWP: They can vote, fight against certain laws, fight against political and social programs and behavior they dislike, just like anyone else.

Yes, they can condemn, criticize or even insult the evil acts of others but that is only from the personal view, the legal view, the social view, but NEVER from the moral view because;

Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

Note the 'hold that', i.e. normative moral relativism generate their own belief, they "have to" and "ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

If one is a descriptive or meta- moral relativist, then one has to [ought to] be morally indifferent to the moral stance of others even when large disagreements in their moral views.

Since moral relativists are indifferent to the moral views of others, they don't have a moral said on the moral matters of others.

So, they can condemn, criticize or even insult the evil acts of others [stop, kill or prevent evil doers] but that is only from the personal view, the legal view, the social view, but NEVER from the moral view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated
Moral Relativists and Subjectivists by definition within a moral framework and system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
in one sense is defined as
"Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist"

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

The above is very stupid and deceptive.
Cars = Sedan: Coupe: Sportscars: Station wagon: Hatchback: Convertible: Sport-utility vehicle (SUV): Minivan: Pickup truck: Jeep: Electric car: CUV/Crossover: Spyder: Hot hatch: Limousine: UTE: Pony car: Sports sedan: Military vehicle: Dragster:


Moral Relativism [Subjectivism] =

Moral Relativism [Subjectivism]
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 in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]
Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[2] Said concepts of the different intellectual movements involve considerable nuance and aren't absolute descriptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[Atla]

I stated
Moral Relativists and Subjectivists by definition within a moral framework and system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
in one sense is defined as
"Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist"

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

The above is very stupid and deceptive.
Cars = Sedan: Coupe: Sportscars: Station wagon: Hatchback: Convertible: Sport-utility vehicle (SUV): Minivan: Pickup truck: Jeep: Electric car: CUV/Crossover: Spyder: Hot hatch: Limousine: UTE: Pony car: Sports sedan: Military vehicle: Dragster:


Moral Relativism [Subjectivism] =

Moral Relativism [Subjectivism]
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 in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]
Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.[2] Said concepts of the different intellectual movements involve considerable nuance and aren't absolute descriptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

See? He's simply mentally retarded. After being shown a long analysis on how moral subjectivism and normative moral relativism are very different, he just continues equating them.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

[Atla]

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.

But IWP, even the AIs and Wiki he's quoting state it clearly that he's wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

[Iwannaplato]

But IWP, even the AIs and Wiki he's quoting state it clearly that he's wrong.

And there's that also, we can take a two-pronged approach to his idiocy. I went and looked at the actual source of his quote from Wikipedia and the source, which is better than Wikipedia, though also flawed, contradicts what he is saying - see my post above.

Just imagine if a moral objectivist like VA came into power. He's already painting his philosohpical opponents as necessarily evil.

[Atla]

But IWP, even the AIs and Wiki he's quoting state it clearly that he's wrong.

And there's that also, we can take a two-pronged approach to his idiocy. I went and looked at the actual source of his quote from Wikipedia and the source, which is better than Wikipedia, though also flawed, contradicts what he is saying - see my post above.

Just imagine if a moral objectivist like VA came into power. He's already painting his philosohpical opponents as necessarily evil.

He has no idea what morality even is for us real flesh-and-blood people, who don't pretend that others don't really exist, like he pretends.

[Iwannaplato]

But IWP, even the AIs and Wiki he's quoting state it clearly that he's wrong.

And there's that also, we can take a two-pronged approach to his idiocy. I went and looked at the actual source of his quote from Wikipedia and the source, which is better than Wikipedia, though also flawed, contradicts what he is saying - see my post above.

Just imagine if a moral objectivist like VA came into power. He's already painting his philosohpical opponents as necessarily evil.

He has no idea what morality even is for us real flesh-and-blood people, who don't pretend that others don't really exist, like he pretends.

Moral subjectivism actually is sometimes argued by saying that there are no mind-independent morals. I loved the irony, but since that irony would go over his head, I decided not to take a detour that would make it even easier for him to repeat rather than respond.

[LuckyR]

I stated
Moral Relativists and Subjectivists by definition within a moral framework and system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
in one sense is defined as
"Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist"

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

Exactly. That's what happens when you push a definition to such an extreme that essentially no one fits the definition. It can be theoretically "interesting", but it has no practical value.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated
Moral Relativists and Subjectivists by definition within a moral framework and system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
in one sense is defined as
"Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist"

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

Exactly. That's what happens when you push a definition to such an extreme that essentially no one fits the definition. It can be theoretically "interesting", but it has no practical value.

My above points are subsumed within a moral framework and system that pursues perpetual peace for humanity via continuous practical moral progress.

Yours? is at best groping around without a head.

[Atla]

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

Exactly. That's what happens when you push a definition to such an extreme that essentially no one fits the definition. It can be theoretically "interesting", but it has no practical value.

My above points are subsumed within a moral framework and system that pursues perpetual peace for humanity via continuous practical moral progress.

Yours? is at best groping around without a head.

You don't even believe in the actual existence of humanity, you just pretend its existence for fake practical reasons. You never even entered the debate about morality.

In the pursuit of more peace, "approaches" such as yours should be destroyed.

[Iwannaplato]

See? No change.

Moral relativist = moral subjectivist = normative moral relativist.
Cars = trains = red cars.

Exactly. That's what happens when you push a definition to such an extreme that essentially no one fits the definition. It can be theoretically "interesting", but it has no practical value.

My above points are subsumed within a moral framework and system that pursues perpetual peace for humanity via continuous practical moral progress.

Yours? is at best groping around without a head.

As usual, no attempt to respond to the point being made, here between two people who do understand the point being made.
But, you effectively found a 'reason' to repeat your position.