Moral Relativists are Inherently Moral Objectivists

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

So, while a moral relativists claim there are differences in moral judgment across different people and cultures, they cannot deny the morality function is real, actual, inherent and is a universal in ALL humans as part of human nature.

That morality is a universal in all humans is also objective [as defined] because it is a judgment [within a FSRK] independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.
It is not subjective per se because it is not dependent on the opinions, beliefs and judgments of a subject or individual.

Therefore a moral relativist cannot deny he is a moral objectivist in the above sense.

There is another breed of moral objectivists who deny morality is objectivity because there are no moral facts.
Their claim is delusional because they are relying on a definition of 'what is fact' that is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded an illusion.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

So, a moral relativist is fundamentally a moral objectivist in the OP sense.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
1. What is Objectivity?

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

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

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

[Iwannaplato]

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

So, while a moral relativists claim there are differences in moral judgment across different people and cultures, they cannot deny the morality function is real, actual, inherent and is a universal in ALL humans as part of human nature.

That morality is a universal in all humans is also objective [as defined] because it is a judgment [within a FSRK] independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.
It is not subjective per se because it is not dependent on the opinions, beliefs and judgments of a subject or individual.

Therefore a moral relativist cannot deny he is a moral objectivist in the above sense.

There is another breed of moral objectivists who deny morality is objectivity because there are no moral facts.
Their claim is delusional because they are relying on a definition of 'what is fact' that is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded an illusion.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

So, a moral relativist is fundamentally a moral objectivist in the OP sense.

Discuss??
Views??

You are conflating the objectivity of the conclusion that humans, in the great majority, have moral positions
with
there being an objective morality.

And you didn't seem to notice the different types of moral relativisms. The only one that takes an kind of objective moral metaposition are the normative moral relativists, who would be disagreed with about that by the second category of moral relativists.

[Atla]

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

So, while a moral relativists claim there are differences in moral judgment across different people and cultures, they cannot deny the morality function is real, actual, inherent and is a universal in ALL humans as part of human nature.

That morality is a universal in all humans is also objective [as defined] because it is a judgment [within a FSRK] independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.
It is not subjective per se because it is not dependent on the opinions, beliefs and judgments of a subject or individual.

Therefore a moral relativist cannot deny he is a moral objectivist in the above sense.

There is another breed of moral objectivists who deny morality is objectivity because there are no moral facts.
Their claim is delusional because they are relying on a definition of 'what is fact' that is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded an illusion.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

So, a moral relativist is fundamentally a moral objectivist in the OP sense.

Discuss??
Views??

You won't get anywhere in academic philosophy if you deliberately misuse basic words such as "objective". How do you expect academics to understand what the hell it is you're saying?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are conflating the objectivity of the conclusion that humans, in the great majority, have moral positions
with
there being an objective morality.

And you didn't seem to notice the different types of moral relativisms. The only one that takes an kind of objective moral metaposition are the normative moral relativists, who would be disagreed with about that by the second category of moral relativists.

What conflation??

I stated,

There is another breed of moral objectivists who deny morality is objective because there are no moral facts.
Their claim is delusional because they are relying on a definition of 'what is fact' that is based on Philosophical-Realism which is grounded an illusion.

All the different types of moral relativists accept morality-in-general is inherent in ALL humans. This is universalism.

Which moral relativist deny morality-in-general within all humans as part of human nature?

[Iwannaplato]

Moral Relativists are actually Hindu Polytheists

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint, such as a culture or a historical period, and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. Hindu polytheism is the belief in, and often worship of, multiple deities or spirits, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religious sects and rituals.

One possible argument that moral relativists are Hindu polytheists is as follows:

- Premise 1: Moral relativists accept that different cultures have different moral standards, and that there is no objective or universal morality.
- Premise 2: Hindu polytheists accept that different gods and goddesses have different attributes, powers, and preferences, and that there is no supreme or absolute deity.
- Premise 3: Moral relativists and Hindu polytheists both value tolerance and diversity, and refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of other standpoints.
- Conclusion: Therefore, moral relativists are Hindu polytheists, since they share the same epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical outlook.