Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism.

Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. 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.[2]
Said concepts of the different intellectual movements involve considerable nuance and aren't absolute descriptions.
Descriptive relativists do not necessarily adopt meta-ethical relativism.
Moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

From what I gather posters like Peter, Sculptor and the like adopt the moral stance that nobody is objectively right or wrong which imply everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

As such, why are moral relativists here complaining and condemning moral realism instead of complying with their principle, they ought to respect and tolerate different moral views including moral realism? i.e. shut up?

There seem to something odd with the above, how do one explain the above dilemma?

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Impenitent]

freedom sucks

-Imp

[Angelo Cannata]

... why are moral relativists here complaining and condemning moral realism instead of complying with their principle, they ought to respect and tolerate different moral views including moral realism?

It seems quite logical to me. Your question looks similar to asking "Why doesn't democracy, which is based on freedom and tolerance, tolerate dictatorship?".

Moreover, in your words you equate "complaining and condemning" with intolerance, which is not the same. It seems to me that intolerance implies a much stronger attitude than just complaining and condemning. For example, eating unhealthy food is condemned, but tolerated by many people. Condemning sounds to me like saying "This is a bad thing, people shouldn't do it", while I perceive intolerance like saying "This thing must not exist at all and, if and when it happens, it must be punished".

Obviously, moral realism itself is not dictatorship, but it prepares, although remotely, a context of dictatorship. Moral realism means "There are moral criterions, principles, that are the same, have the same validity, for everyone, everywhere at any time, past, present and future". The problem is that realists, obviously, adhere personally to what they consider objective principles. As a consequence, moral realism, to a certain degree, is equivalent to say "My personal ideas are the right ones". This creates an equivalence between "right ideas" and "my ideas", so that obeying to objective moral principles becomes equivalent to obeying to those specific people who proclaim those principles. Here is dictatorship.

[Angelo Cannata]

In the context of what I have said, your question looks like "Why doesn't tolerance tolerate intolerance?".

[Peter Holmes]

1 The main claim of descriptive moral relativism is obviously true.

2 To reject moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - is not to accept meta-ethical or normative moral relativism or moral nihilism. This supposed choice or dichotomy amounts to two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

[Veritas Aequitas]

... why are moral relativists here complaining and condemning moral realism instead of complying with their principle, they ought to respect and tolerate different moral views including moral realism?

It seems quite logical to me. Your question looks similar to asking "Why doesn't democracy, which is based on freedom and tolerance, tolerate dictatorship?".

Moreover, in your words you equate "complaining and condemning" with intolerance, which is not the same. It seems to me that intolerance implies a much stronger attitude than just complaining and condemning. For example, eating unhealthy food is condemned, but tolerated by many people. Condemning sounds to me like saying "This is a bad thing, people shouldn't do it", while I perceive intolerance like saying "This thing must not exist at all and, if and when it happens, it must be punished".

Obviously, moral realism itself is not dictatorship, but it prepares, although remotely, a context of dictatorship. Moral realism means "There are moral criterions, principles, that are the same, have the same validity, for everyone, everywhere at any time, past, present and future". The problem is that realists, obviously, adhere personally to what they consider objective principles. As a consequence, moral realism, to a certain degree, is equivalent to say "My personal ideas are the right ones". This creates an equivalence between "right ideas" and "my ideas", so that obeying to objective moral principles becomes equivalent to obeying to those specific people who proclaim those principles. Here is dictatorship.

"My personal ideas are the right ones"
This is more like Moral/Ethical Subjectivism.
see below, in [=mine]

Instead ethical/[moral] subjectivism claims that moral truths are based on the mental states of individuals or groups of people.

Moral Realism claims there are universal moral elements within human nature, i.e. inherent [DNA wise] in all human beings as a specie.
E.g. no normal humans would volunteer to be killed, be owned as a chattel slave, raped, torture and subject himself to all sort of evil acts.

Evidently there are exceptions to the above but they are deviants due to damage to their inherent moral functions. Humanity need to strive to prevent [as best as possible] such deviants in the future [not possible now].

[Angelo Cannata]

"My personal ideas are the right ones"
This is more like Moral/Ethical Subjectivism.

I am not sure that Hitler's way of thinking "My personal ideas are the right ones" has to be considered moral/ethical subjectivism. Rather, what I meant was the following concept:

my personal ideas are not just personal; when I think of something, that thing is the objective truth, because objective truth exists, I understand objective truth, I follow it, I am able to discern it, my rationality works correctly, so, as a consequence, what I think of is not just my opinion, it is the truth. If I think that Hebrews are an evil of the world, then I am right and it is morally correct to exterminate them.

I don't think that such a way of thinking is moral subjectivism.

About morality in our DNA, we can discover many things in our DNA, including an instinct to kill our enemies or to be unfair if life makes it necessary. How do we know, according to moral realists, which things of our DNA represent objective morality and which ones are instead not objectively moral?

[Iwannaplato]

From what I gather posters like Peter, Sculptor and the like adopt the moral stance that nobody is objectively right or wrong which imply everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

I think moral relativists would be more likely to let something slide - your family lets the kids use their cellphones at dinner? OK, I think that's a bad idea, but whatever.
But still they will most likely want rapists to go to prison and so on, depending on their morals.

As such, why are moral relativists here complaining and condemning moral realism instead of complying with their principle,

In a philosophical forum they disagree with your arguments about your moral realist stance. It's a philosophy forum

they ought to respect and tolerate different moral views including moral realism? i.e. shut up?

They don't have to respect the arguments you make in favor of it.

There seem to something odd with the above, how do one explain the above dilemma?

You don't understand the position you are arguing against and think it means you just accept the actions and policies of people who have different values from you. That's the first oddity. The second oddity is you conflate the situation of discussing philosophical ideas online in a philosophy forum, with interactions in real life where any moral antirealist is navigating all the contradicting moral realisms held by moral realists. That's oddity two. Oddity three is that you think respect is shutting up. Oddity four is that you think moral realism is a moral view rather than a philosophical position. There are other oddities but that's a good start.

Discuss??
Views??
[/quote]

[Sculptor]

Moral Relativists are the same as Moral Realists.

Moral Objectivists are just deluded, fascistic, authoritarians.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"My personal ideas are the right ones"
This is more like Moral/Ethical Subjectivism.

I am not sure that Hitler's way of thinking "My personal ideas are the right ones" has to be considered moral/ethical subjectivism. Rather, what I meant was the following concept:

my personal ideas are not just personal; when I think of something, that thing is the objective truth, because objective truth exists, I understand objective truth, I follow it, I am able to discern it, my rationality works correctly, so, as a consequence, what I think of is not just my opinion, it is the truth. If I think that Hebrews are an evil of the world, then I am right and it is morally correct to exterminate them.

I don't think that such a way of thinking is moral subjectivism.

What is objective must be universal and conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

When "a" person claims his truth are the universal truth, e.g. Jews are to be exterminated, it cannot be universal, first the Jews will not agree with it and those against racism will not agree it.
Since it is not universally accepted it cannot be objective [as defined above].
Thus it is subjective or relative which belongs to moral subjectivism or moral relativism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

About morality in our DNA, we can discover many things in our DNA, including an instinct to kill our enemies or to be unfair if life makes it necessary. How do we know, according to moral realists, which things of our DNA represent objective morality and which ones are instead not objectively moral?

All humans are programmed fundamentally with the potential to kill to facilitate killing of non-humans for food or for self-defense.
But there is a danger that this potential could be turned towards humans for various reasons, thus nature has "programmed" in ALL humans the potential to ensure killing is not directed towards humans. This is the moral function which is represented by physical DNA, neurons, etc.
But unfortunately this moral potential of no-killing of humans is weak and thus we have humans killing humans for various reasons.

But the existence of the moral function of 'no-killing of humans' is evident because the majority of people do not simply kill humans on sight or for fun or arbitrary.
So we can infer there exist such physical moral elements in the brain and DNA.

Are you familiar with the Humane Genome Project?
the Human Connectome Project?
https://www.humanconnectome.org/
to map all the neural pathways to all human actions and impulses.

Humanity have already completed the Humane Genome Project to identify all the DNA codes. It is a matter of time, humanity can link [verified, test, justified] the DNA codes to its ultimate physical manifestations including the moral functions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From what I gather posters like Peter, Sculptor and the like adopt the moral stance that nobody is objectively right or wrong which imply everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.

I think moral relativists would be more likely to let something slide - your family lets the kids use their cellphones at dinner? OK, I think that's a bad idea, but whatever.
But still they will most likely want rapists to go to prison and so on, depending on their morals.

Yes, morally they will let genocides and all sorts of terrible evil acts deemed by certain groups as moral.

If they believe genocides, rapes and other acts are wrong, that is related to politics, social, customs and legal issues, not within the ambit of morality.
They don't have a moral voice to condemned these immoral acts.
They also do not have a moral basis to facilitate moral progress.

The most they can do is to increase legal deterrence or kill those who commit genocides or rely on political strategies.

As such, why are moral relativists here complaining and condemning moral realism instead of complying with their principle,

In a philosophical forum they disagree with your arguments about your moral realist stance. It's a philosophy forum

From one perspective by definition of their moral relativism, they should tolerate the views of moral realists as well.

they ought to respect and tolerate different moral views including moral realism? i.e. shut up?

They don't have to respect the arguments you make in favor of it.

There seem to something odd with the above, how do one explain the above dilemma?

You don't understand the position you are arguing against and think it means you just accept the actions and policies of people who have different values from you. That's the first oddity. The second oddity is you conflate the situation of discussing philosophical ideas online in a philosophy forum, with interactions in real life where any moral antirealist is navigating all the contradicting moral realisms held by moral realists. That's oddity two. Oddity three is that you think respect is shutting up. Oddity four is that you think moral realism is a moral view rather than a philosophical position. There are other oddities but that's a good start.

Discuss??
Views??

[/quote]
Discuss??
If they are discussing, they should then give 'objective' and balanced views.
But they are dogmatic to one view, my way or the highway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists are the same as Moral Realists.

Note as defined in meta-ethics

Moral Objectivists are just deluded, fascistic, authoritarians.

I linked somewhere to you but you ignored or cannot comprehend your own ignorance:
viewtopic.php?p=702192#p702192

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your sense of objectivity is illusory just like theists' objectivity.
This is where theists insist their morality is objective i.e. from God.
You insist your objectivity is based on absolute mind-independent facts and since moral elements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
So, they are no objective moral facts.
So, you are grounding in an illusory to refute moral objectivism.
You are the one who is deluded and being delusional in grounding your claim based on an illusion.

What is moral objectivism proper is grounded upon an embodied human based FSRC, just like scientific facts are objective grounded on the human-based FSRC.
You deny scientific facts are objective?
Since it is directly human-based, it cannot be illusory.
So moral objectivism is realistic and can be relied upon to promote moral progress.

[Angelo Cannata]

What is objective must be universal and conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

I see that you mean "objective" in a non absolute way. As a consequence, I guess the same applies when you talk about moral realists in your opening post.
But this way you consider your own perspective exclusively and decide to ignore other people's perspective, I mean those people who think that their realism is absolute, which is not conditioned, not limited by any mental framework, any cultural context, nothing, just absolute.
Even if you think that you have been able to give all evidence, reasoning and answers showing that such absolute realism is untenable, how do you know that you aren't missing anything in your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is absolutely free from errors?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is objective must be universal and conditioned upon a human-based FSK.

I see that you mean "objective" in a non absolute way. As a consequence, I guess the same applies when you talk about moral realists in your opening post.
But this way you consider your own perspective exclusively and decide to ignore other people's perspective, I mean those people who think that their realism is absolute, which is not conditioned, not limited by any mental framework, any cultural context, nothing, just absolute.

I did not simply ignored other people's perspective re absolute moral realism.

I argued they are grounding their sense of moral absoluteness on an illusion;
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Even if you think that you have been able to give all evidence, reasoning and answers showing that such absolute realism is untenable, how do you know that you aren't missing anything in your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is absolutely free from errors?

As mentioned I have justified my views in the above thread and many other related threads.
I am not insisting my view is absolutely perfect but rather it is the most realistic based on available evidences.