... 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
Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 11:08 amYes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 6:29 am 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?
And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?
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.