Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thesis: Moral Relativists Condone Torturing Killing of Babies for Pleasure
... if you are a moral subjectivist or relativist, by definition, you MUST tolerate the moral maxim "babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure", if there are certain groups who insist such 'heinous' acts are morally permissible.

• 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. WIKI

Thesis point is raised from this discussion:

From your study of history, anthropology and cultural studies, have you come across any groups of human or individual[s] who readily would act or accept that babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure?

Yes.
And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

In the case of moral objectivism or moral realism it has to be qualified to a set specific moral elements.

The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" [SF1] is one element of morality.
I claimed this very intuitive moral element is an evident pattern which is inherent in ALL humans.
This evident pattern can be abducted as very tenable scientific hypothesis.
It is very likely the scientific FSERC will confirm the above hypothesis [in the future] as a scientific fact which is objective.
When this scientific fact [SF1] in inputted into the moral FSERC, it is a moral fact which is objective.

My approach is to prove there are objective moral facts via the scientific FSERC.
The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" is one plausible moral facts, thus as qualified to ONLY this [SFI] morality, is objective.

From the above basis, I will demonstrate there are other similar moral facts with varying degrees of objectivity [nevertheless is still objective].

I don't make a blanket claim 'morality is objective' but the claim must be qualified to the set of specific moral elements that are proven to be objective.

The moral objectivist will insist on the following maxim categorically:
"no babies ought to be tortured and killed for pleasure" because such an outnot_ness is inherent in all humans.
Moral objectivists will strongly condemned any torturing and killing of babies for pleasure and take all means [with moral scope] to prevent such heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

On the other hand, if you are a moral subjectivist or relativist, by definition, you MUST tolerate the moral maxim "babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure", if there are certain groups who insist such 'heinous' acts are morally permissible.

Moral relativism or subjectivism is very vile and so you are very vile in being indirectly complicit [morally] to the above act.
You don't have a moral say nor moral compass in stopping people from 'torturing and killing babies for pleasure' nor promote any moral progress to prevent future acts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above is for discussion and views are welcomed.

Notes: KIV

[LuckyR]

Thesis: Moral Relativists Condone Torturing Killing of Babies for Pleasure
... if you are a moral subjectivist or relativist, by definition, you MUST tolerate the moral maxim "babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure", if there are certain groups who insist such 'heinous' acts are morally permissible.

• 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. WIKI

Thesis point is raised from this discussion:

From your study of history, anthropology and cultural studies, have you come across any groups of human or individual[s] who readily would act or accept that babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure?

Yes.
And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

In the case of moral objectivism or moral realism it has to be qualified to a set specific moral elements.

The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" [SF1] is one element of morality.
I claimed this very intuitive moral element is an evident pattern which is inherent in ALL humans.
This evident pattern can be abducted as very tenable scientific hypothesis.
It is very likely the scientific FSERC will confirm the above hypothesis [in the future] as a scientific fact which is objective.
When this scientific fact [SF1] in inputted into the moral FSERC, it is a moral fact which is objective.

My approach is to prove there are objective moral facts via the scientific FSERC.
The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" is one plausible moral facts, thus as qualified to ONLY this [SFI] morality, is objective.

From the above basis, I will demonstrate there are other similar moral facts with varying degrees of objectivity [nevertheless is still objective].

I don't make a blanket claim 'morality is objective' but the claim must be qualified to the set of specific moral elements that are proven to be objective.

The moral objectivist will insist on the following maxim categorically:
"no babies ought to be tortured and killed for pleasure" because such an outnot_ness is inherent in all humans.
Moral objectivists will strongly condemned any torturing and killing of babies for pleasure and take all means [with moral scope] to prevent such heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

On the other hand, if you are a moral subjectivist or relativist, by definition, you MUST tolerate the moral maxim "babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure", if there are certain groups who insist such 'heinous' acts are morally permissible.

Moral relativism or subjectivism is very vile and so you are very vile in being indirectly complicit [morally] to the above act.
You don't have a moral say nor moral compass in stopping people from 'torturing and killing babies for pleasure' nor promote any moral progress to prevent future acts.

There is a big difference between acknowledging that an outlier set of rules exist and personally agreeing with that set of rules.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral relativism or subjectivism is very vile and so you are very vile in being indirectly complicit [morally] to the above act.
You don't have a moral say nor moral compass in stopping people from 'torturing and killing babies for pleasure' nor promote any moral progress to prevent future acts.

There is a big difference between acknowledging that an outlier set of rules exist and personally agreeing with that set of rules.
[/quote]
I agree if one is merely discussing and giving their view on the difference stances of morality then they are not adopting any particular moral stance.

But in the context of the OP, it is assumed [unless specified] those who argued for their particular moral stance, e.g. moral relativism, adopt that particular moral stance.
So far, no one has qualify they are merely discussing, i.e. describing the various views and not adopting the moral stance they are arguing for.

Therefore, those who have been arguing for moral relativism, whilst will not commit it, they "condone" [or accept] the 'Killing of Babies for Pleasure' by those who insist it is 'moral' to do so.

[LuckyR]

There is a big difference between acknowledging that an outlier set of rules exist and personally agreeing with that set of rules.

I agree if one is merely discussing and giving their view on the difference stances of morality then they are not adopting any particular moral stance.

But in the context of the OP, it is assumed [unless specified] those who argued for their particular moral stance, e.g. moral relativism, adopt that particular moral stance.
So far, no one has qualify they are merely discussing, i.e. describing the various views and not adopting the moral stance they are arguing for.

Therefore, those who have been arguing for moral relativism, whilst will not commit it, they "condone" [or accept] the 'Killing of Babies for Pleasure' by those who insist it is 'moral' to do so.

Huh? You are mixing up the concept that every individual has a (different) set of moral codes to guide themselves in life decisions, with the (erroneous) idea that acknowleging this reality equates to personally agreeing with each and every individual moral code in existence (which is an essentially infinite number).

BTW no thinking individual (I know personally) believes this.

Most moral relativists are likely not normative moral relativists (rather meta ethical moral relativists), by my estimation.

In addition, "arguing for" one's personal moral codes, is not limited to relativists, universalists do as well.

[Age]

Moral relativism or subjectivism is very vile and so you are very vile in being indirectly complicit [morally] to the above act.
You don't have a moral say nor moral compass in stopping people from 'torturing and killing babies for pleasure' nor promote any moral progress to prevent future acts.

There is a big difference between acknowledging that an outlier set of rules exist and personally agreeing with that set of rules.

I agree if one is merely discussing and giving their view on the difference stances of morality then they are not adopting any particular moral stance.

But in the context of the OP, it is assumed [unless specified] those who argued for their particular moral stance, e.g. moral relativism, adopt that particular moral stance.
So far, no one has qualify they are merely discussing, i.e. describing the various views and not adopting the moral stance they are arguing for.

Therefore, those who have been arguing for moral relativism, whilst will not commit it, they "condone" [or accept] the 'Killing of Babies for Pleasure' by those who insist it is 'moral' to do so.
[/quote]

Absolutely every thing is 'relative', to the observer. So, the fact that 'moral relativity' exists is unquestionable.

Also, one cannot, logically, 'condone' something if they do not accept it as being 'morally wrong'.

If you find the 'killing of babies for pleasure' as 'morally wrong', then so be it. But if there are any who do not, then they do not 'condone' the killing of babies for pleasure, they just do not think that doing so is 'morally wrong'.

Are you able to comprehend and understand this?

Also, until you can find a human being who thinks or believes that the killing of babies for pleasure is not 'morally wrong', then saying that there are those people existing, then this exists in your imagination only "veritas aequitas".

[Atla]

Huh? You are mixing up the concept that every individual has a (different) set of moral codes to guide themselves in life decisions, with the (erroneous) idea that acknowleging this reality equates to personally agreeing with each and every individual moral code in existence (which is an essentially infinite number).

BTW no thinking individual (I know personally) believes this.

Most moral relativists are likely not normative moral relativists (rather meta ethical moral relativists), by my estimation.

In addition, "arguing for" one's personal moral codes, is not limited to relativists, universalists do as well.

He deliberately mixed up relativism with normative relativism in the OP, of course even the Wiki page he linked warns against this. And he was corrected many times on this before, but he deliberately won't listen, because he's here to push an agenda. He does this so he can claim that anyone who doesn't agree with his kind of objectivism, is deep down an amoral, sadistic, murderous psychopath. It is implied that force should be used against all relativists in general. I think many relativists would agree that what he's doing is morally malignant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a big difference between acknowledging that an outlier set of rules exist and personally agreeing with that set of rules.

I agree if one is merely discussing and giving their view on the difference stances of morality then they are not adopting any particular moral stance.

But in the context of the OP, it is assumed [unless specified] those who argued for their particular moral stance, e.g. moral relativism, adopt that particular moral stance.
So far, no one has qualify they are merely discussing, i.e. describing the various views and not adopting the moral stance they are arguing for.

Therefore, those who have been arguing for moral relativism, whilst will not commit it, they "condone" [or accept] the 'Killing of Babies for Pleasure' by those who insist it is 'moral' to do so.

Huh? You are mixing up the concept that every individual has a (different) set of moral codes to guide themselves in life decisions, with the (erroneous) idea that acknowleging this reality equates to personally agreeing with each and every individual moral code in existence (which is an essentially infinite number).

BTW no thinking individual (I know personally) believes this.

Most moral relativists are likely not normative moral relativists (rather meta ethical moral relativists), by my estimation.

In addition, "arguing for" one's personal moral codes, is not limited to relativists, universalists do as well.

I don't get your point.

Descriptive moral relativism holds that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, without passing any evaluative or normative judgments about this disagreement.
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.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

How do you know? reference if any? that most moral relativists are not into Normative moral relativism.

Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]
In this case, a Meta-ethical moral relativism they are indifferent and do not have a moral stance on various moral actions and thus are indirectly implicit to the said evil acts.

A moral realist or objectivist however will stamp his feet that all evil acts are immoral and thus take step to prevent or eliminate them pro-actively.
In my case, I am digging into the root caused that trigger humans to commit evil and I am researching to promote the necessary neural inhibitors that modulate and prevent evil acts spontaneously or judgmentally.

You? do not seem to be doing anything morally at all to prevent evil acts and promote moral progress.
The most you can do is .. refer to the current political laws which are not fool proofs.

[LuckyR]

Huh? You are mixing up the concept that every individual has a (different) set of moral codes to guide themselves in life decisions, with the (erroneous) idea that acknowleging this reality equates to personally agreeing with each and every individual moral code in existence (which is an essentially infinite number).

BTW no thinking individual (I know personally) believes this.

Most moral relativists are likely not normative moral relativists (rather meta ethical moral relativists), by my estimation.

In addition, "arguing for" one's personal moral codes, is not limited to relativists, universalists do as well.

He deliberately mixed up relativism with normative relativism in the OP, of course even the Wiki page he linked warns against this. And he was corrected many times on this before, but he deliberately won't listen, because he's here to push an agenda. He does this so he can claim that anyone who doesn't agree with his kind of objectivism, is deep down an amoral, sadistic, murderous psychopath. It is implied that force should be used against all relativists in general. I think many relativists would agree that what he's doing is morally malignant.

I get what you're saying, it bugs me when folks pretend to be experts on the inner workings of folks they completely disagree with (and thus have no personal experience being).