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.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
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??