Moral Relativism Implies Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativism implies Morality-in-substance is Objective.

Moral relativism or ethical relativism

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral nihilism

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong.
However, holding nihilism does not necessarily imply that one should give up using moral or ethical language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

Moral Nihilist reject any form of Morality.
Moral Relativists are not Moral Nihilists.

Moral Relativists recognize morality exists as an activity within human nature in ALL humans; however moral relativists claim different people adopt different principles and practices.

• Philosophical Objectivity
  Something is objective if it is true even outside of individuals' minds (their biases, perception, emotions, opinions, or imagination). If a claim is true even when considering it independently from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is objectively true.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivi ... bjectivity

From the Moral Relativists' perspective, it is true morality itself in substance [differ in forms] exists as an activity within human nature in ALL humans.
This truth is independent of individuals minds (their biases, perception, emotions, opinions, or imagination).
Therefore, Morality-in-substance is Objective within the Moral Relativists' Perspective.

Ps. This is one perspective where Morality-in-Substance [not in form] implies "Morality is Objective." This is not my main argument why 'Morality is Objective'

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Any counter from Moral Relativists on this OP?

[Iwannaplato]

Any counter from Moral Relativists on this OP?

It certainly seems like you are saying that moral relativists believe that humans have morals. That morals and morality exist.
They sure do believe that.
What they don't believe is that moral assertions can be demonstrated to be true or false.

Like we cannot resolve, objectively if gay marriage is immoral.

Obviously no moral relativist denies that moralities and morals exist.

You're making a category error or some kind of banal truth not resolving the differences between PH's position and yours.

Dreams are real. But my father was not piloting a plane between building in my home city last night while I clung to my passenger seat in terror. I dreamt it and it seemed true to me at the time. If I say it means it actually happened that he flew that plane and I look in media for confirmation that it happened and accuse media of hiding that it happened in my home city with my (deceased) father driving, my assertion is not objectively correct.
There's the rub.

The rub is not whether people have dreams or have morals or have religious experiences or fantasies or believe in a mind independent reality.


I mean, rewrite your argument as an argument for the objective existence of mind independent reality and it will be just as sound as yours.

People in all cultures believe in mind independent reality....blah, blah, blah. Call it realism.
And poof, via your argument...
Mind independent reality is objectively the case.

Or, you're just saying realism exists which no one doubts. That belief exists.

Morality is real. Most humans have positions on what is moral and immoral. No one's contesting that.

[iambiguous]

Any counter from Moral Relativists on this OP?

It certainly seems like you are saying that moral relativists believe that humans have morals. That morals and morality exist.
They sure do believe that.
What they don't believe is that moral assertions can be demonstrated to be true or false.

Like we cannot resolve, objectively if gay marriage is immoral.

Obviously no moral relativist denies that moralities and morals exist.

What Iwannaplato said.

No, really.

Now, let's explore the OP given a particular context. From my perspective as a moral relativist and from the perspective of anyone here who deems himself or herself to be a moral objectivist. God or No God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From my perspective morality-proper is not essentially about rightness and wrongness of human acts supposedly attributed to 'morality'.

Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG
viewtopic.php?t=40331
It is by default morality based on rightness and wrongness [which is subjective] cannot be objective.

Morality-proper is related to the moral potential that is inherent in all humans as represented by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with the potential for sexuality.
We know there are various manifestation inclinations to sexuality, i.e. heterosexuality [majority], homosexuality, bisexuality, perverted sexuality, etc.

However the point there are various choices to sexuality and disputes [e.g. by the religious], those variations does not obviate the inherent sexuality that is present in all humans.
In this case, sexuality is objective as defined in the OP and can be verified and justified as objective within the science-biology-psychology FSR-FSK.

The above analogy is applicable to the inherent moral potential [i.e. morality] within ALL humans.
In this case, morality is objective regardless of the various views held by moral relativists.

When moral relativists insist morality is not objective because there are no moral facts existing independent of the human conditions, they [as philosophical realists] are grounding their claim based on an illusion from philosophical realism.
As such the moral relativists' claim is groundless and baseless.

There are those who claim their morality is objective without credible proofs.
The question is, on what FSR-FSK are the making such claims.
As I had argued elsewhere, morality based on the theistic-moral FSR which is based on blind faith that God exists is not credible and objective [in the 5th percentile] in contrast to the science-FSK [95th percentile].

[Skepdick]

Any counter from Moral Relativists on this OP?

It certainly seems like you are saying that moral relativists believe that humans have morals. That morals and morality exist.
They sure do believe that.
What they don't believe is that moral assertions can be demonstrated to be true or false.

Well what sort of demonstration do they have in mind?!?

Can anyone demonstrate that this color is red?

[Iwannaplato]

From my perspective morality-proper is not essentially about rightness and wrongness of human acts supposedly attributed to 'morality'.

Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG
viewtopic.php?t=40331
It is by default morality based on rightness and wrongness [which is subjective] cannot be objective.

Morality-proper is related to the moral potential that is inherent in all humans as represented by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with the potential for sexuality.
We know there are various manifestation inclinations to sexuality, i.e. heterosexuality [majority], homosexuality, bisexuality, perverted sexuality, etc.

However the point there are various choices to sexuality and disputes [e.g. by the religious], those variations does not obviate the inherent sexuality that is present in all humans.
In this case, sexuality is objective as defined in the OP and can be verified and justified as objective within the science-biology-psychology FSR-FSK.

The above analogy is applicable to the inherent moral potential [i.e. morality] within ALL humans.
In this case, morality is objective regardless of the various views held by moral relativists.

When moral relativists insist morality is not objective because there are no moral facts existing independent of the human conditions, they [as philosophical realists] are grounding their claim based on an illusion from philosophical realism.
As such the moral relativists' claim is groundless and baseless.

There are those who claim their morality is objective without credible proofs.
The question is, on what FSR-FSK are the making such claims.
As I had argued elsewhere, morality based on the theistic-moral FSR which is based on blind faith that God exists is not credible and objective [in the 5th percentile] in contrast to the science-FSK [95th percentile].

I don't know if this was intended to be a response to the points I raised, but if it was, it does not address the points I raised.