Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[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.

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.

"Moral SHits"??
SO what you are saying is that people who disagree with your personal moral standpoint are "shits".
That is not a very convincing argument.
Moral relativism is not indifference; it is simply a recogntion that morals are no applied universally and that different cultures have different morals.
DO you accept that the Bible validates slavery? Would you like me to show you the passages?
Do you also validate moral slavery - are are you just a shit too?

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

Meaning: what you call moral Objectivists are fascists who want to impose all their personal moral rules upon every one else and every other cultural because they claim that their morals are objectively true..

Since you are so kee to denigrate relativists... Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!, as you claim!!

Opps you cannot!

[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

Since VA is popularizing a technique where in order to save time, we no longer bother to reply to unusually bad comments, instead we just send ChatGPT to do the dirty work, here is another one (IWP also did one):

How correct is the statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent, that they accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts? That moral relativists do not have a moral compass?

The statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent and accept or are implicit in genocides and other forms of evil acts is an oversimplification and can be misleading. Moral relativism is a philosophical position that holds that moral judgments are relative to cultural, societal, or individual perspectives. It doesn't necessarily imply moral indifference or a lack of a moral compass.

Moral relativists argue that there is no absolute standard for morality and that moral judgments should be understood within the context of cultural norms, individual beliefs, and historical circumstances. However, this doesn't mean that moral relativists condone or endorse all actions or behaviors. Many moral relativists still have moral principles and values; they just believe that these values may vary across different cultures or individuals.

It's essential to distinguish between descriptive moral relativism (which describes the diversity of moral beliefs and practices) and normative moral relativism (which asserts that all moral perspectives are equally valid). Not all moral relativists endorse normative relativism, and many may still criticize certain actions as morally wrong based on their own cultural or personal values.

In summary, it's inaccurate to claim that moral relativists are necessarily morally indifferent or lack a moral compass. Instead, their perspective emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting different moral frameworks while acknowledging the existence of diverse ethical perspectives.

[bahman]

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].

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

In other words, moral relativists do not have a moral compass.

As such, moral relativists has no moral-say [sense of objective moral good] with the 10/7 genocides, other genocides or any acts of evil.

The only recourse moral relativists can resort to is the laws of the land which is non-moral, i.e. political, legislature, judicial, or by force their way to whatever their views are.

On the other hand, the moral realists [there are objective moral facts] has a moral-say or moral stance that genocides and all other evil acts are not morally permissible.
This can then be transposed to the legal view, i.e. genocides and all evil acts are illegal.

What defense can moral relativists counter to the above charges?

Views??
Discuss??

Morality is not objective or reason-based. Like it or not. People have different opinions, emotions, biases,... when it comes to a situation. Like it or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

"Moral SHits"??
SO what you are saying is that people who disagree with your personal moral standpoint are "shits".
That is not a very convincing argument.
Moral relativism is not indifference; it is simply a recogntion that morals are no applied universally and that different cultures have different morals.
DO you accept that the Bible validates slavery? Would you like me to show you the passages?
Do you also validate moral slavery - are are you just a shit too?

The essential of moral relativism is, the differences in morality within difference cultures must be respected and tolerated for what they are, i.e. "to each their own".

Thus if a different culture permit and condone genocides, you have to accept and respect their wishes to commit genocides because it is part of their morality.

Slavery in the Bible?? are you complaining and condemning it? No! you cannot complain about slavery in the Bible because you have to respect and tolerate their dictums of morality that slavery is condoned.

As a moral objectivist, slavery [an evil] is impermissible, period!
If the Bible condone slavery, then that particular [not all its] moral element is 'shit' morality.
Because slavery is evil as a universal, moral objectivists on this particular moral element, will take pro-active preventive and corrective steps in striving to eliminate all form of slavery, if cannot be done now, then progressively toward the future.
Moral objectivists will do the same [strive to eliminate] for all evil elements based on universal moral principles.

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

Meaning: what you call moral Objectivists are fascists who want to impose all their personal moral rules upon every one else and every other cultural because they claim that their morals are objectively true..

Since you are so kee to denigrate relativists... Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!, as you claim!!

Opps you cannot!

Strawman!
Where did I state moral objectivists will impose their personal moral rules upon everyone else.

I qualified "morality proper" within a moral framework and system which mean objectivity and universality [not applicable to personal or one subject's view] that are verified and justified as positive to the well being of all humans.

Analogy:
Take the inherent universal biological oughtness "All humans must breathe" that is a biological function programmed in all humans.
If anyone do not want to breathe as in a suicide that is a personal issue due to some psychological defects.

Similarly there are the inherent universal moral oughtness in all humans [in the DNA], e.g. "no human ought to kill humans"
Sure, there are humans who kill other humans, that is due to exceptions from psychological defects or the need for self-defense.
But there is no denial the inherent universal moral oughtness in all humans [in the DNA], e.g. "no human ought to kill humans" exists as a moral fact in all humans.

Moral objectivists [driven by an objective universal standard] will strive to develop the inherent oughtness potential in all humans to its optimal to an near as possible to its full potential.

Because moral relativists are indifferent, tolerate, respect the unique moral stance from different cultures and group, i.e. to each their own, they do not have the motive [as constituted within their ideology] to change or improve on those evil elements within those different cultures.

So, yes, Moral relativists are 'moral' shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide [and all other evils] on moral grounds.

[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].

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

In other words, moral relativists do not have a moral compass.

As such, moral relativists has no moral-say [sense of objective moral good] with the 10/7 genocides, other genocides or any acts of evil.

The only recourse moral relativists can resort to is the laws of the land which is non-moral, i.e. political, legislature, judicial, or by force their way to whatever their views are.

On the other hand, the moral realists [there are objective moral facts] has a moral-say or moral stance that genocides and all other evil acts are not morally permissible.
This can then be transposed to the legal view, i.e. genocides and all evil acts are illegal.

What defense can moral relativists counter to the above charges?

Views??
Discuss??

Morality is not objective or reason-based. Like it or not. People have different opinions, emotions, biases,... when it comes to a situation. Like it or not.

You are wrong and you need to think more deeply and widely.

Morality is naturally objective and that can be reasoned-out, justified and verified via the scientific method.

Do people have different opinions, emotions and biases on a choice whether to breathe or not?
No! because all humans are programmed [embedded in their DNA] with the imperative to breathe, else they will suffer pains then die. This is the categorical biological 'oughtness' [noun] to breathe.

Note the analogy of the biological 'puberty' potential in all humans which is expressed during the early teens; also note this also comes in degrees of its full potential.

Similarly, there are elements [exhaustive] of categorical moral oughtness that are embedded in the human DNA as potentials.
The difference with puberty is the moral potential is unfolding slowly within individuals and humanity thus not as noticeable as puberty.
Note the evident moral progress of the reduction in all slavery within humanity that took >10,000 years to the present where slavery [chattel] is illegal in all sovereign nations.

You have any counter to the above?

[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

The statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent and accept or are implicit in genocides and other forms of evil acts is an oversimplification and can be misleading. Moral relativism is a philosophical position that holds that moral judgments are relative to cultural, societal, or individual perspectives. It doesn't necessarily imply moral indifference or a lack of a moral compass.

Moral relativists argue that there is no absolute standard for morality and that moral judgments should be understood within the context of cultural norms, individual beliefs, and historical circumstances. However, this doesn't mean that moral relativists condone or endorse all actions or behaviors. Many moral relativists still have moral principles and values; they just believe that these values may vary across different cultures or individuals.

It's essential to distinguish between descriptive moral relativism (which describes the diversity of moral beliefs and practices) and normative moral relativism (which asserts that all moral perspectives are equally valid). Not all moral relativists endorse normative relativism, and many may still criticize certain actions as morally wrong based on their own cultural or personal values.

In summary, it's inaccurate to claim that moral relativists are necessarily morally indifferent or lack a moral compass. Instead, their perspective emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting different moral frameworks while acknowledging the existence of diverse ethical perspectives.

Despite my posting above from ChatGpt that concluded
viewtopic.php?p=692266#p692266 ;

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.

there are still those who ignore the above views from ChatGpt, and continue to ask ChatGpt based on their biasness and narrow-mindedness.

ChatGpt in the above stated 'might not', rather it should be a categorical 'DO NOT'.
In any case, the above imply moral relativists do not have a moral compass within their ideological stance of moral relativism.

If someone condemned genocides and other evil acts, they cannot wear the 'moral relativism' hat but rather that condemnation is on their personal basis.
Moral relativists [by their constitution and definition] cannot have any moral grounds to condemn genocides and all other evil acts, i.e. they don't have a moral compass that guide them in the direction [north pole] of morality-proper.

For example, an official member of the Nazi party will have to agree and accept to commit acts of genocide if assigned to do it regardless of his personal opinions and belief that he hate genocide.

It is a fallacy to conflate one's adopted-ideological views with one's personal views.

[Atla]

Despite my posting above from ChatGpt that concluded
viewtopic.php?p=692266#p692266 ;

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.

there are still those who ignore the above views from ChatGpt, and continue to ask ChatGpt based on their biasness and narrow-mindedness.

ChatGpt in the above stated 'might not', rather it should be a categorical 'DO NOT'.
In any case, the above imply moral relativists do not have a moral compass within their ideological stance of moral relativism.

If someone condemned genocides and other evil acts, they cannot wear the 'moral relativism' hat but rather that condemnation is on their personal basis.
Moral relativists [by their constitution and definition] cannot have any moral grounds to condemn genocides and all other evil acts, i.e. they don't have a moral compass that guide them in the direction [north pole] of morality-proper.

For example, an official member of the Nazi party will have to agree and accept to commit acts of genocide if assigned to do it regardless of his personal opinions and belief that he hate genocide.

It is a fallacy to conflate one's adopted-ideological views with one's personal views.

Continue to ask? I literally just typed your own claim into ChatGPT, that's it. I'm narrow minded for allegedly not accepting what ChatGPT says, even though I'm the one who agreed with it and you tried to correct it? Here it is again:

Which statement is more correct between the following two (the difference will be "might not" versus "does not")?

A moral relativist might not have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide within the framework of moral relativism.
a moral relativist does not have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide within the framework of moral relativism.

The more accurate statement would be:

"A moral relativist might not have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide within the framework of moral relativism."

This phrasing reflects the idea that moral relativism allows for the possibility that some individuals within this philosophical framework might have a moral basis to condemn certain acts, but it's not a universal or absolute standard.

Tell me more about why this statement was the more accurate one.

The distinction between "might not" and "does not" in these statements reflects the nature of moral relativism and the philosophical position it entails.

"Might not":

Moral relativism acknowledges the diversity of moral beliefs and values across different cultures, societies, and individuals.
While some moral relativists may have personal or cultural moral frameworks that allow them to condemn acts like genocide, the key point is that there is no universal, objective moral basis that all moral relativists adhere to.
The use of "might not" recognizes the variability within moral relativism, leaving room for individual or cultural differences in moral judgments.
"Does not":

This statement would suggest a more absolute stance, implying that no moral relativist, under any circumstances, can have an overarching, universal moral basis to condemn acts like genocide.
It might oversimplify the diversity of perspectives within moral relativism, as there could be instances where individuals or cultures within this framework might indeed condemn certain acts based on their specific moral perspectives.

In summary, the use of "might not" allows for the recognition of potential variability within moral relativism, while "does not" would imply a more rigid and absolute assertion about the absence of a universal moral basis, which may not accurately capture the nuances of the philosophical position.

[Sculptor]

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.

"Moral SHits"??
SO what you are saying is that people who disagree with your personal moral standpoint are "shits".
That is not a very convincing argument.
Moral relativism is not indifference; it is simply a recogntion that morals are no applied universally and that different cultures have different morals.
DO you accept that the Bible validates slavery? Would you like me to show you the passages?
Do you also validate moral slavery - are are you just a shit too?

The essential of moral relativism is, the differences in morality within difference cultures must be respected and tolerated for what they are, i.e. "to each their own".

Thus if a different culture permit and condone genocides, you have to accept and respect their wishes to commit genocides because it is part of their morality.

Slavery in the Bible?? are you complaining and condemning it? No! you cannot complain about slavery in the Bible because you have to respect and tolerate their dictums of morality that slavery is condoned.

As a moral objectivist, slavery [an evil] is impermissible, period!
If the Bible condone slavery, then that particular [not all its] moral element is 'shit' morality.
Because slavery is evil as a universal, moral objectivists on this particular moral element, will take pro-active preventive and corrective steps in striving to eliminate all form of slavery, if cannot be done now, then progressively toward the future.
Moral objectivists will do the same [strive to eliminate] for all evil elements based on universal moral principles.

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

Meaning: what you call moral Objectivists are fascists who want to impose all their personal moral rules upon every one else and every other cultural because they claim that their morals are objectively true..

Since you are so kee to denigrate relativists... Please find a single moral relativist that "accepts" genocide!, as you claim!!

Opps you cannot!

Strawman!
Where did I state moral objectivists will impose their personal moral rules upon everyone else.

I qualified "morality proper" within a moral framework and system which mean objectivity and universality [not applicable to personal or one subject's view] that are verified and justified as positive to the well being of all humans.

Analogy:
Take the inherent universal biological oughtness "All humans must breathe" that is a biological function programmed in all humans.
If anyone do not want to breathe as in a suicide that is a personal issue due to some psychological defects.

Similarly there are the inherent universal moral oughtness in all humans [in the DNA], e.g. "no human ought to kill humans"
Sure, there are humans who kill other humans, that is due to exceptions from psychological defects or the need for self-defense.
But there is no denial the inherent universal moral oughtness in all humans [in the DNA], e.g. "no human ought to kill humans" exists as a moral fact in all humans.

Moral objectivists [driven by an objective universal standard] will strive to develop the inherent oughtness potential in all humans to its optimal to an near as possible to its full potential.

Because moral relativists are indifferent, tolerate, respect the unique moral stance from different cultures and group, i.e. to each their own, they do not have the motive [as constituted within their ideology] to change or improve on those evil elements within those different cultures.

So, yes, Moral relativists are 'moral' shits, i.e. being indifferent, they are not morally pro-active to stop and prevent the genocide [and all other evils] on moral grounds.

You are gtting too desperate to bother with.

[bahman]

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].



In other words, moral relativists do not have a moral compass.

As such, moral relativists has no moral-say [sense of objective moral good] with the 10/7 genocides, other genocides or any acts of evil.

The only recourse moral relativists can resort to is the laws of the land which is non-moral, i.e. political, legislature, judicial, or by force their way to whatever their views are.

On the other hand, the moral realists [there are objective moral facts] has a moral-say or moral stance that genocides and all other evil acts are not morally permissible.
This can then be transposed to the legal view, i.e. genocides and all evil acts are illegal.

What defense can moral relativists counter to the above charges?

Views??
Discuss??

Morality is not objective or reason-based. Like it or not. People have different opinions, emotions, biases,... when it comes to a situation. Like it or not.

You are wrong and you need to think more deeply and widely.

Morality is naturally objective and that can be reasoned-out, justified and verified via the scientific method.

Do people have different opinions, emotions and biases on a choice whether to breathe or not?
No! because all humans are programmed [embedded in their DNA] with the imperative to breathe, else they will suffer pains then die. This is the categorical biological 'oughtness' [noun] to breathe.

Note the analogy of the biological 'puberty' potential in all humans which is expressed during the early teens; also note this also comes in degrees of its full potential.

Similarly, there are elements [exhaustive] of categorical moral oughtness that are embedded in the human DNA as potentials.
The difference with puberty is the moral potential is unfolding slowly within individuals and humanity thus not as noticeable as puberty.
Note the evident moral progress of the reduction in all slavery within humanity that took >10,000 years to the present where slavery [chattel] is illegal in all sovereign nations.

You have any counter to the above?

Well, if we had a different type of DNA than we have right now, we probably couldn't survive. Think of a situation in which a species is mainly psychopath. They simply could not survive. So the fact that we have such a DNA does not make morality objective. It is simply about survival.

[Iwannaplato]

I asked Chatgpt about the psychology and cognitive issues of someone maintaining the position in the title and OP of this thread:

The belief that moral relativists are indifferent to heinous acts like genocide, rape, and murder may stem from a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of moral relativism. It's important to note that moral relativism is a philosophical position that suggests that moral judgments are subjective and vary across individuals, cultures, or societies. It doesn't necessarily imply indifference to morally repugnant actions.

The person holding this belief might be influenced by cognitive biases, such as oversimplification or overgeneralization. Cognitive biases can lead individuals to form inaccurate or irrational beliefs based on limited information or personal perceptions. In this case, the individual may have encountered a few examples of people who identify as moral relativists and behave in a way that seems morally indifferent, leading to the assumption that all moral relativists share this indifference.

Psychologically, this perspective could be rooted in a need for cognitive consistency, where the person prefers to maintain a consistent belief system, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Admitting that moral relativists can care deeply about moral issues might challenge their existing worldview, causing discomfort.

Additionally, there might be an element of confirmation bias at play, where the individual selectively interprets information that supports their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing or downplaying evidence to the contrary.

Engaging in open and respectful dialogue with the person to explore their assumptions and provide more nuanced information about moral relativism could be a constructive approach. It's essential to foster understanding and bridge gaps in perception rather than reinforcing stereotypes based on a limited understanding of complex philosophical positions.

[Iwannaplato]

And the ironic thing is that anyone with experience of humans would know that they can be incredibly passionate about subjective things that they consider subjective. They'll slave away for years to pay for some of these things.

[Atla]

And the ironic thing is that anyone with experience of humans would know that they can be incredibly passionate about subjective things that they consider subjective. They'll slave away for years to pay for some of these things.

Imo VA's basic lack of empathy is showing again. Anyone who is familiar with moral compasses knows that most moral non-objectivists also have one.

[Iwannaplato]

And the ironic thing is that anyone with experience of humans would know that they can be incredibly passionate about subjective things that they consider subjective. They'll slave away for years to pay for some of these things.

Imo VA's basic lack of empathy is showing again. Anyone who is familiar with moral compasses knows that most moral non-objectivists also have one.

The persona he chooses to post with certainly lacks empathy for many categories of people. And he's quick to not merely generalize but to universalize. 5 or 6 realists react a certain way to his posts and so all realists are........[and that's of course following his assumption that what they are reacting to is is philosophical position, rather than posting style, etc.]. I love how he blames realists for the crimes of the religious, but finds a way not to blame himself for the crimes of moral objectivists. It must be nice to have little memory and have little ability to see what his lines of reasoning entail.

[iambiguous]

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.

Which is exactly why we must take the arguments down out of intellectual clouds and test them given particular contexts revolving around social, political and economic interactions.

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.

All this suggests to me is that moral "claims" discussed and debated "philosophically" often get entangled in the limitations of human language itself. Squabbles over how to define the meaning of words pertaining only to other words themselves. As wittgenstein famously averred, “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Only, out in the real world, in regard to actual human relationships, silence is out of the question. One way or another conflicting goods must be confronted in order to establish "rules of behavior" in any particular community.

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.

Again and again and again: given what particular conflicting behaviors, given what particular context, given what particular claims?

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.

And then those like me who take it even further still. In being "fractured and fragmented" morally, I see no font around enabling us to resolve the conflicts by [philosophically or otherwise] establishing the basis for a truly rational discussion.

Deontology, in other words.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are getting too desperate to bother with.

That is your usual when cornered and run out of rational points to counter my above.