So, while a moral relativists claim there are differences in moral judgment across different people and cultures, they cannot deny the morality function is real, actual, inherent and is a universal in ALL humans as part of human nature.Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures.
Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
That morality is a universal in all humans is also objective [as defined] because it is a judgment [within a FSRK] independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.
It is not subjective per se because it is not dependent on the opinions, beliefs and judgments of a subject or individual.
Therefore a moral relativist cannot deny he is a moral objectivist in the above sense.
There is another breed of moral objectivists who deny morality is objectivity because there are no moral facts.
Their claim is delusional because they are relying on a definition of 'what is fact' that is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded an illusion.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
So, a moral relativist is fundamentally a moral objectivist in the OP sense.
Discuss??
Views??