Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What is your definition of objective?

Objective means universal and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.

Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species. You think otherwise?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I stated,

"the above imply moral relativists do not have a moral compass within their ideological stance of moral relativism."

Within my discussion with ChatGpt, it is with reference to the individual's chosen ideological stance of moral relativism.
For example, if a person adopt a communist ideological and speaking as a communist, he does not have the grounds [in a debate or in any policy judgment and decisions] to claim that democracy may be better than communism.

A communist member may have a personal view that democracy may be better than communism, but he has no rights nor ground to express that as a communist.

It is the same with a moral relativist, he may have doubts about moral relativism, but he has no rights nor ground to express his doubts as a moral relativist.

Suggest you copy and paste the whole point above and ask ChatGpt for its view whether my point is reasonable or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note my counter to Atla's above.

Suggest you copy and paste my whole reply point andabove and ask ChatGpt for its view whether my point as qualified to the ideology and moral-relativism-FSM is reasonable or not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Yes, there is an inherent moral compass in all humans encoded within their DNA.
But for some especially moral relativists, it is damaged & defective due to damage to the DNA expression mechanisms codes [RNA etc.] or due to epi-genetic factors.

[Atla]

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



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.

I stated,

"the above imply moral relativists do not have a moral compass within their ideological stance of moral relativism."

Within my discussion with ChatGpt, it is with reference to the individual's chosen ideological stance of moral relativism.
For example, if a person adopt a communist ideological and speaking as a communist, he does not have the grounds [in a debate or in any policy judgment and decisions] to claim that democracy may be better than communism.

A communist member may have a personal view that democracy may be better than communism, but he has no rights nor ground to express that as a communist.

It is the same with a moral relativist, he may have doubts about moral relativism, but he has no rights nor ground to express his doubts as a moral relativist.

Suggest you copy and paste the whole point above and ask ChatGpt for its view whether my point is reasonable or not.

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.

Yes, there is an inherent moral compass in all humans encoded within their DNA.
But for some especially moral relativists, it is damaged & defective due to damage to the DNA expression mechanisms codes [RNA etc.] or due to epi-genetic factors.

The thread title is: "Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides"

And the OP starts with: "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]."

You started with the generalization, it's what you always do. This time with a downright 'evil' generalization. You did it deliberately.

[Sculptor]

You are getting too desperate to bother with.

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

But you have no argument.
Everything you say is either blatantly false or just personal.

I asked you to furnish ONE example of a moral relativist who complies with yout viewpoint of them.
You have failed.
That makes the entire thread a childish strawman polemeic.

[bahman]

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.

What is your definition of objective?

Based on reason.

Objective means universal and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.

Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species. You think otherwise?

Some humans are different from the norm, think of psychopaths and masochists,...

[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.

But you have no argument.
Everything you say is either blatantly false or just personal.

I asked you to furnish ONE example of a moral relativist who complies with yout viewpoint of them.
You have failed.
That makes the entire thread a childish strawman polemeic.

You are the one who build a strawman.

Read my original post again;
viewtopic.php?p=692380#p692380

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What is your definition of objective?

Based on reason.

What is it exactly based on reason?
Surely you have access to online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

Objective means universal and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.

Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species. You think otherwise?

Some humans are different from the norm, think of psychopaths and masochists,...

It is a fact ALL humans are coded within their DNA to have two legs.
Thus that is an objective fact humans has two legs.

If a person is born with no legs, that is because it is due to defects based on epigenetics factors or damage to the RNA etc.
The original DNA remains with the person and exist in ALL humans, thus universal and objective.

ALL humans are coded with a generic and core vision mechanism in the brain which is universal thus objective.
That someone is blind, color blind or synaesthetic do not obviate the existence of this objective core vision mechanism in the brain.

There are inherent DNA codes of the moral function within all humans, thus objective.

Psychopaths and masochists [generally 1%] are basically normal humans with objective moral potentials but the difference is, somewhere and sometime there are damages to certain inhibitors during the expression of their DNA or subsequently their psychological state is affected by epigenetic factors that caused them to commit immoral acts.
These difference do not obviate the existence of this objective moral potential and mechanism in the brain.

[Iwannaplato]

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

But you have no argument.
Everything you say is either blatantly false or just personal.

I asked you to furnish ONE example of a moral relativist who complies with yout viewpoint of them.
You have failed.
That makes the entire thread a childish strawman polemeic.

You are the one who build a strawman.

Read my original post again;
viewtopic.php?p=692380#p692380

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.

We've read your OP, which, at root, is utterly confused about what moral relativism is and what it entails.

There are a number of moral relativisms, but generally in philosophy it is a metaethical position

The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

Notice that this clearly does not entail that one must accept or condone genocide. It's an idea about whether ethics are objective or not. One is free, for example, to respect one's own values, which may and generally do include a dislike of genocide.
There is nothing in the metaethical position that demands that one accept other people's ethics or put them higher than one's own. There are other problems with the silliness and hysteria of the OP.

But given your utter inability to admit you are wrong about anything you hold remotely dear, including even minor mistakes, expecting you to suddenly acknowledge anything. So, we are limited to winking at each other as we respond to your posts.

And the idiotic citation marks around 'accept' in the title of the thread are undone by straight citation markless idiocy in the OP text itself.

You cannot point to examples, nor can you demonstrate that your conclusions are entailed, because they are not.

There is no injunction in the main positions of moral relativism to accept, let alone condone, genocide.

A moment's reflection - clearly too much to ask - would make you realize that that would be an objective moral position. You must accept genocide. You must condone it. LOL.

[bahman]

What is your definition of objective?

Based on reason.

What is it exactly based on reason?
Surely you have access to online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

Objectivity is based on reason.

Objective means universal and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.

That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.

Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species. You think otherwise?

Some humans are different from the norm, think of psychopaths and masochists,...

It is a fact ALL humans are coded within their DNA to have two legs.
Thus that is an objective fact humans has two legs.

If a person is born with no legs, that is because it is due to defects based on epigenetics factors or damage to the RNA etc.
The original DNA remains with the person and exist in ALL humans, thus universal and objective.

ALL humans are coded with a generic and core vision mechanism in the brain which is universal thus objective.
That someone is blind, color blind or synaesthetic do not obviate the existence of this objective core vision mechanism in the brain.

There are inherent DNA codes of the moral function within all humans, thus objective.

Psychopaths and masochists [generally 1%] are basically normal humans with objective moral potentials but the difference is, somewhere and sometime there are damages to certain inhibitors during the expression of their DNA or subsequently their psychological state is affected by epigenetic factors that caused them to commit immoral acts.
These difference do not obviate the existence of this objective moral potential and mechanism in the brain.

The very existence of that small percent means that morality is not objective, of course in the sense that you define it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Based on reason.

What is it exactly based on reason?
Surely you have access to online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

Objectivity is based on reason.

What kind of thinking is that?
Try something from online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

Some humans are different from the norm, think of psychopaths and masochists,...

It is a fact ALL humans are coded within their DNA to have two legs.
Thus that is an objective fact humans has two legs.

If a person is born with no legs, that is because it is due to defects based on epigenetics factors or damage to the RNA etc.
The original DNA remains with the person and exist in ALL humans, thus universal and objective.

ALL humans are coded with a generic and core vision mechanism in the brain which is universal thus objective.
That someone is blind, color blind or synaesthetic do not obviate the existence of this objective core vision mechanism in the brain.

There are inherent DNA codes of the moral function within all humans, thus objective.

Psychopaths and masochists [generally 1%] are basically normal humans with objective moral potentials but the difference is, somewhere and sometime there are damages to certain inhibitors during the expression of their DNA or subsequently their psychological state is affected by epigenetic factors that caused them to commit immoral acts.
These difference do not obviate the existence of this objective moral potential and mechanism in the brain.

The very existence of that small percent means that morality is not objective, of course in the sense that you define it.

You missed my point.

Here is another example,
If a car is damaged and cannot operate normally, it does not mean there is no factual objective car.

As such, while there are 1% of psychopaths, it still remain that 100% of ALL humans still has an inherent moral potential and function in varying state of operation or is damaged.

[bahman]

What is it exactly based on reason?
Surely you have access to online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

Objectivity is based on reason.

What kind of thinking is that?
Try something from online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

It is a fact ALL humans are coded within their DNA to have two legs.
Thus that is an objective fact humans has two legs.

If a person is born with no legs, that is because it is due to defects based on epigenetics factors or damage to the RNA etc.
The original DNA remains with the person and exist in ALL humans, thus universal and objective.

ALL humans are coded with a generic and core vision mechanism in the brain which is universal thus objective.
That someone is blind, color blind or synaesthetic do not obviate the existence of this objective core vision mechanism in the brain.

There are inherent DNA codes of the moral function within all humans, thus objective.

Psychopaths and masochists [generally 1%] are basically normal humans with objective moral potentials but the difference is, somewhere and sometime there are damages to certain inhibitors during the expression of their DNA or subsequently their psychological state is affected by epigenetic factors that caused them to commit immoral acts.
These difference do not obviate the existence of this objective moral potential and mechanism in the brain.

The very existence of that small percent means that morality is not objective, of course in the sense that you define it.

You missed my point.

Here is another example,
If a car is damaged and cannot operate normally, it does not mean there is no factual objective car.

As such, while there are 1% of psychopaths, it still remain that 100% of ALL humans still has an inherent moral potential and function in varying state of operation or is damaged.

No, you have never been a psychopath it seems! They tend to kill or harm people. They desire this.

[Iwannaplato]

And, of course, the different moralities out there are all FSKs and thus, according to VA, they are objective. Intersubjective systems of belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is based on reason.

What kind of thinking is that?
Try something from online dictionaries, WIKI and others?

That is in my dictionary. Objectivity is based on reason. Subjectivity is based on opinion, bias, emotions, and the like.

Heh..heh .. "my dictionary" that is very personal and subjective, thus your "Objectivity is based on reason" itself is not objective [if any is negligible within the continuum].

As such your whatever views on this topic lack objective [credibility], i.e. is subject to your opinions and beliefs.

The very existence of that small percent means that morality is not objective, of course in the sense that you define it.

You missed my point.

Here is another example,
If a car is damaged and cannot operate normally, it does not mean there is no factual objective car.

As such, while there are 1% of psychopaths, it still remain that 100% of ALL humans still has an inherent moral potential and function in varying state of operation or is damaged.

No, you have never been a psychopath it seems! They tend to kill or harm people. They desire this.

Again your knowledge is very shallow and narrow. Suggest you read to widen your horizon further.

Out of the 1% of psychopaths, there are the benign and malignant [toxic] psychopaths.

There is a toxic and a benign form of psychopathy

"The toxic form of psychopathy is characterized by antisocial impulsiveness," says Prof.
Gerhard Blickle from the Department of Psychology. Such people cannot control themselves, they take what they like, act without thinking beforehand and pass the blame to others.

"The potentially benign form of psychopathy is named fearless dominance," adds co-author Nora Schütte.
"It can develop to be bad, but also to be very good." People with these characteristics do not know fear, have pronounced self-confidence, good social skills and are extremely resistant to stress.