Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, in this OP I did not claim moral relativists [see Wiki definition above] commit genocides.

One point is the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol pots, extremist Islamists did not commit genocides based on moral grounds [as moral objectivism] but rather on grounds of political, ideological, religious, economics, racial, historical grievances.

That Hitler killed 6 million Jews is based on race superiority, economics and other political grievances and not on moral grounds per se.

[iambiguous]

Again, in this OP I did not claim moral relativists [see Wiki definition above] commit genocides.

One point is the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol pots, extremist Islamists did not commit genocides based on moral grounds [as moral objectivism] but rather on grounds of political, ideological, religious, economics, racial, historical grievances.

That Hitler killed 6 million Jews is based on race superiority, economics and other political grievances and not on moral grounds per se.

Right.

None of them ever linked their political, ideological, religious, economic, racial and historical value judgments to morality.

Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior"

None of them were ever principled in pursuing their own particular dogmas.

People have often called them moral monsters, but what do they know about the philosophical parameters of "moral realism".

And, of course, our own personal reactions to them have little or nothing to do with the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted existentially [historically, culturally, experientially] in dasein. In fact, that's what philosophy is for...to provide us with the technical tools needed to encompass human morality deontologically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why Relativism is the Worst Idea Ever
Maarten Boudry
https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/07/29/w ... idea-ever/

If it’s ‘true’ that truth is relative, then the assertion itself is also relative and cancels itself out.
Relativism about what is morally right and wrong less obviously defeats itself, since it is not entirely clear if the claim that “moral standards are relative” is itself a moral claim.

But in practice, moral relativism is an equally self-defeating position.
For instance, moral relativists will typically condemn the belief in universal moral standards as a form of ‘cultural imperialism’, the implicit assumption being that cultural imperialism is bad.
But if moral standards are relative, then so is the claim that cultural imperialism is reprehensible.
In any rational discussion, relativism is the intellectual equivalent of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’, the deterrent used by nuclear superpowers during the Cold War. Pressing the red button will destroy your enemy, but ensure your own destruction as well.

[Age]

Again, in this OP I did not claim moral relativists [see Wiki definition above] commit genocides.

One point is the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol pots, extremist Islamists did not commit genocides based on moral grounds [as moral objectivism] but rather on grounds of political, ideological, religious, economics, racial, historical grievances.

That Hitler killed 6 million Jews is based on race superiority, economics and other political grievances and not on moral grounds per se.

Does any human being kill another human, one or six million on so-called 'moral grounds'.

It would sort of be very, very hypocritical and a contradiction to do so, would it not?

[Skepdick]

Has he not worked out that his morality-proper is relative to choices made when selecting these FSK model things? Is VA still unaware that he is a moral relativist?

Hehhh, that's such a cute reframing.

Then obviously everyone's a moral relativist. By default.

But if you can rank any two FSKs against each other you can inductively rank all of them from best to worst thus a total order emerges. Which leaves you holding your dick in your hand when asked to explain whether we've morally progressed or morally regressed over the last 5000 years.

Don't they teach you basic sorting algorithms in philosophy class?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Has he not worked out that his morality-proper is relative to choices made when selecting these FSK model things? Is VA still unaware that he is a moral relativist?

Hehhh, that's such a cute reframing.

Then obviously everyone's a moral relativist. By default.

But if you can rank any two FSKs against each other you can inductively rank all of them from best to worst thus a total order emerges. Which leaves you holding your dick in your hand when asked to explain whether we've morally progressed or morally regressed over the last 5000 years.

Don't they teach you basic sorting algorithms in philosophy class?

Actually FDP's is a dumb reframing.

I have provided the definition for Moral Relativism in the OP,

Moral Relativism or Ethical Relativism is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short.

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://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

My views as Moral Objectivism or Moral Realism is directly the opposite of the above definition.
As such, my views even with consideration of human-based FSKs cannot be moral relativism [as defined].

Since a FSK is human-based obviously there are subjects involved but the resultant is objective [e.g. scientific facts are objective] since it is based on a collective-of-subjects [intersubjectivity] and not an individual subject's opinions, beliefs and judgment.
My basis of moral objectivism is based on these principles and in no way can fit in with the moral relativism defined in the OP.

[FlashDangerpants]

Has he not worked out that his morality-proper is relative to choices made when selecting these FSK model things? Is VA still unaware that he is a moral relativist?

Hehhh, that's such a cute reframing.

Then obviously everyone's a moral relativist. By default.

But if you can rank any two FSKs against each other you can inductively rank all of them from best to worst thus a total order emerges. Which leaves you holding your dick in your hand when asked to explain whether we've morally progressed or morally regressed over the last 5000 years.

Don't they teach you basic sorting algorithms in philosophy class?

Actually FDP's is a dumb reframing.

Actually it's not, like I said you select the paramters when you initiate the FSK stuff and the outcomes are dependent on those contingent choices. The key to the riddle is that you are the only person in the world who plays the FSK sorting game, and you are the only person who knows the rules of the game so you are the only one allowed to play it. In the rules of this weird game you play with yourself, science is the bestest FSK for some reason that needs no explanation, and anything that reminds you personally of science is therefore 90% the best.

If two people play your FSK game, it becomes relativism. I just select something other than science as my key to determining which is the best moral theory and then, simply because there are now two players, the game hits stalemate. Now add a third player and it's pure bedlam from that point onwards.

I have provided the definition for Moral Relativism in the OP,

Moral Relativism or Ethical Relativism is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short.

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://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

My views as Moral Objectivism or Moral Realism is directly the opposite of the above definition.
As such, my views even with consideration of human-based FSKs cannot be moral relativism [as defined].

Since a FSK is human-based obviously there are subjects involved but the resultant is objective [e.g. scientific facts are objective] since it is based on a collective-of-subjects [intersubjectivity] and not an individual subject's opinions, beliefs and judgment.
My basis of moral objectivism is based on these principles and in no way can fit in with the moral relativism defined in the OP.

But there's no limit to how many morality FSKs there could be, the only thing that restricts it to one is that the rest of the world doesn't join in your FSK sorting games. If we did, your nonsense would get drowned out.

To the extent that there are rules in your FSK game, you have already committed to FSKs you don't accept being partially right (you never assign zero credibility) so your whole FSK thing is inherently relativist on that basis alone.

But of course the point of having your own special game with rules that only you know was always to play Calvinball anyway.

[Atla]

If two people play your FSK game, it becomes relativism. I just select something other than science as my key to determining which is the best moral theory and then, simply because there are now two players, the game hits stalemate. Now add a third player and it's pure bedlam from that point onwards.

I think even if we all choose science as our basis, we can come up with as many different moral theories as we want.

[Sculptor]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

Discuss??

THis is yet another idiotic claim.
Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!
I'll not hold my breath..

Hitler was a logical positivist and moral objectivist. He not only accepted what he saw as the "need" to commit genocide - has wasted no time in carrying it out against several categories of persons who resided outside his sexual, mental, political and racial norms determined objectivly with science. Jews, Slavs, left iwngers, trans, lesbians and other homosexuals were all exterminated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

Discuss??

THis is yet another idiotic claim.
Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!
I'll not hold my breath..

Hitler was a logical positivist and moral objectivist. He not only accepted what he saw as the "need" to commit genocide - has wasted no time in carrying it out against several categories of persons who resided outside his sexual, mental, political and racial norms determined objectivly with science. Jews, Slavs, left iwngers, trans, lesbians and other homosexuals were all exterminated.

Yours is the idiotic one and being ignorant of it.
Moral relativists are 'moral' shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide on moral grounds.

Note I wrote 'accept' in '_' which meant I did not state it is literally but 'accept' by implication based on the definition of what is a moral relativist [see OP].

To a moral relativists (MR), in terms of morality, it is 'to each their own' and MRs are indifferent to the actions who exercise their moral actions.
As a moral relativist[?] you have no moral-say and thus is indifferent to Hitler's genocides, all other genocides and all evil acts because as a MR you believe they are entitled or are duty bound to exercise their moral obligations.
As such, as a Moral Relativist you cannot condemn all genocides and evil acts on moral grounds.

As for moral objectivity they are of varying degrees from the higher of morality-proper to the negligible from those of pseudo-morality.
Hitler's genocides is based on his personal racism, political ambition, and psychological state, thus can hardly be objective.
Hamas's Oct-7 genocide is based in the existence of a God [Allah] and the man-made Quran thus morality [if any] is of negligible objectivity.
Theirs [all others of the same] is that of pseudo-morality NOT morality-proper.

You may condemn genocides in some way, but as an indifferent MR, you cannot condemn them on moral grounds. The only ground is personal or legal which are independent of morality.

Moral relativists are moral shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide on moral grounds.

Moral Objectivists [morality proper] mission is to take pro-active moral actions to prevent and develop moral competences within all individuals toward the future.

[Atla]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

Discuss??

THis is yet another idiotic claim.
Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!
I'll not hold my breath..

Hitler was a logical positivist and moral objectivist. He not only accepted what he saw as the "need" to commit genocide - has wasted no time in carrying it out against several categories of persons who resided outside his sexual, mental, political and racial norms determined objectivly with science. Jews, Slavs, left iwngers, trans, lesbians and other homosexuals were all exterminated.

Yours is the idiotic one and being ignorant of it.
Moral relativists are 'moral' shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide on moral grounds.

Note I wrote 'accept' in '_' which meant I did not state it is literally but 'accept' by implication based on the definition of what is a moral relativist [see OP].

To a moral relativists (MR), in terms of morality, it is 'to each their own' and MRs are indifferent to the actions who exercise their moral actions.
As a moral relativist[?] you have no moral-say and thus is indifferent to Hitler's genocides, all other genocides and all evil acts because as a MR you believe they are entitled or are duty bound to exercise their moral obligations.
As such, as a Moral Relativist you cannot condemn all genocides and evil acts on moral grounds.

As for moral objectivity they are of varying degrees from the higher of morality-proper to the negligible from those of pseudo-morality.
Hitler's genocides is based on his personal racism, political ambition, and psychological state, thus can hardly be objective.
Hamas's Oct-7 genocide is based in the existence of a God [Allah] and the man-made Quran thus morality [if any] is of negligible objectivity.
Theirs [all others of the same] is that of pseudo-morality NOT morality-proper.

You may condemn genocides in some way, but as an indifferent MR, you cannot condemn them on moral grounds. The only ground is personal or legal which are independent of morality.

Moral relativists are moral shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide on moral grounds.

Moral Objectivists [morality proper] mission is to take pro-active moral actions to prevent and develop moral competences within all individuals toward the future.

Except the Quran is exactly objective morality at play.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Despite me presented the definition of Moral Relativism, some people still cannot get it.

Moral Relativism or Ethical Relativism is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short.

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://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... relativism

If ChatGpt is asked to refer to the above definition, its answer would be different.

With phrases "everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist" “to each her own,” “Who am I to judge?” within the moral-relativist FSK, a moral relativist do not have any moral-say or moral judgment on the genocides and evil actions of others regardless how much personal hatred he has for those evil acts.

A moral relativists do not have any moral ground from their moral FSK to tell those who had committed genocides or other evil act what they have done is morally impermissible and they ought to stop their evil act.

What they can do in response to the abhorrence to genocides and other evil acts is at most to state they will report to the authorities that they have committed evil acts that are against some laws.
As stated above, that is a political and legislature issue not a moral issue.

A moral relativist do not have any moral grounds to condemn genocides and other evil acts committed by others based on certain moral grounds.
For example, if Allah command that it is moral for Muslims to kill non-Muslim at the slightest threat to the religion, a moral relativists has no moral grounds to counter it morally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As I had stated your philosophical substance and standard is very low yet try to be patronizing and condemning my views.

What you have failed is to differentiate between personal and to topic, moral grounds.

Here is ChatGpt's views [with reservations];

a moral-relativist Framework and System of Morality (FSM), the question arises: Does a moral relativist have a consistent moral basis to condemn acts like genocide?

Within the moral-relativist perspective, the emphasis is on recognizing and understanding the diversity of moral beliefs and practices across different cultures and individuals. Descriptive moral relativism acknowledges that people have fundamental disagreements about what is moral, without passing judgment on the desirability of these disagreements.
Meta-ethical moral relativism takes it a step further, asserting that in these disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.

Normative moral relativism suggests that, because there is no objective moral truth, individuals and cultures should tolerate the moral beliefs and behaviors of others, even when there are significant disagreements. This stance promotes a non-judgmental approach based on the acknowledgment of diverse perspectives.

Given this, within their own moral-relativist FSM, a moral relativist may not have a universal moral ground to condemn acts like genocide as inherently and objectively wrong. However, it's important to note that this doesn't mean a moral relativist can't personally abhor and detest such acts on an individual level.

In practice, a moral relativist might condemn genocide based on their personal moral intuitions, emotional responses, or adherence to legal and societal norms within their particular cultural context.
The condemnation, in this case, would be grounded in subjective values, empathy, and societal standards rather than an appeal to an absolute moral truth.

So, while a moral relativist might not have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide within the framework of moral relativism, they can still express their disapproval based on personal values and societal norms. The tension arises from the coexistence of personal moral judgments with the recognition of cultural and moral diversity emphasized by moral relativism.

so, I say, a moral relativist DO NOT have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide within the framework of moral relativism.

A moral relativist as conditioned within his moral-relativist FSK ['to each their own" "no moral judgment"] do not have any moral grounds to condemn genocides and all other acts of evil.

As I had written earlier, it is critical to have objective moral ground [fixed goal posts] so that preventive and developmental methods can be instituted to facilitate the progress of average moral competence of human toward the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

After going through many rounds with ChatGpt [with reservation] who keep insisting one ought to respect cultural diversity here is the latest which I can agree with [except my approach is not full fledge consequentialism];

Your perspective aligns with a consequentialist and evolving understanding of morality, where certain actions are considered more critical or morally significant than others. Your approach involves assigning weights or criticalness ratings to different moral concerns, recognizing that not all actions carry the same moral weight. Additionally, you emphasize the potential for moral progress and evolution over time.

Key points from your perspective:

Exclusion of Non-Human Living Things:
You suggest excluding non-human living things from the moral domain, acknowledging the practicalities of human existence, such as the need to consume meat and the unavoidable interactions with various life forms.

Compassion for Certain Animals:
While excluding non-human living things from strict moral consideration, you advocate for developing compassion for certain animals and treating them kindly. This reflects a nuanced approach that considers the well-being of specific species.

Relative Criticalness Ratings:
You propose assigning criticalness ratings to different moral concerns, recognizing that actions like genocide carry a much higher moral weight (99.5%) compared to other practices like arranged marriages, ceremonial animal sacrifice, or polygamy (rated at <10% criticalness).

Consideration of Cultural Diversity:
You factor in cultural diversity by assigning lower criticalness ratings to certain practices that may be culturally accepted but are considered less critical from a universal moral perspective.

Proactive Steps for Change:
You advocate for proactive steps to deter low-morality concerns progressively over time. This aligns with the idea that moral progress is possible, as illustrated by the historical shift in attitudes toward practices like slavery.

Recognition of Moral Evolution:
Your perspective recognizes that moral attitudes can evolve over time, and actions that were once acceptable may become morally objectionable as societies progress. [example slavery, child sacrifice]

Your moral-objectivist view is reasonable within a consequentialist framework that acknowledges the complexity and evolving nature of moral considerations. It highlights the importance of recognizing varying degrees of moral significance and emphasizes the potential for positive moral change over time.

It's worth noting that this perspective aligns with a dynamic understanding of morality that takes into account cultural diversity and human moral progress.